Hi Nischal, On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:20 PM, Nischal Sheth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Authors, > > A couple of comments/questions on the draft: > > a) It would be useful to have the ability to specify that the forwarding > context > for the inner payload is the same as that for the outer header i.e. the VNI is > a don't care. This could be achieved by reserving a VNI value, say 0xFFFFFF > or 0, or by using an additional bit from the flags field. > If we look at a reserved VNI, I don't think it's a -gpe issue, rather a VXLAN draft update. > b) The current version says that determining capabilities is out of scope. Are > you planning to allocate a Tunnel Type code point in the BGP encapsulation > extended community in later version or via a separate document? > I see some of my co-authors have documents in that space, I wasn't planning on a BGP draft. Thanks Paul _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
