> This implies that both gpe LISP and legacy LISP may be used in the market. Is > that true only IP-in-IP application need nonce feature? Mobility is important > requirement for cloud applications, so gpe LISP needs to develop other > solution for this feature? Sorry, this is a hard sale.
If you use IP-in-IP you don't need to set the P-bit, making the nonce available for use. Yes, there are applications where the nonce is useful. [Lucy] Yes, I agree that the nonce is useful. But gpe LISP router will not support that. Why do we want to remove this in the protocol evolution? Lucy Dino > > Regards, > Lucy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:56 AM > To: Lucy yong > Cc: Paul Quinn (paulq); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt > >> Regarding to the protocol evolution, does this mean that nonce/map-version >> features in LISP will be deprecated? IMO: Having the same field overloaded >> for many difference purposes is not good way for the protocol evolution, it >> becomes messy. > > No it does not mean that. It means that the features need to be traded off. > So the market/user-base will decide what it wants to use that field for. > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
