On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Paul Quinn (paulq) wrote: > 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. >
Fair enough. I will redirect the question to the authors of the VXLAN draft. BTW, the VXLAN draft says that the VNI is valid only when the I bit is set. So, in theory, it might be possible to send packets with the I bit clear to get the desired behavior. Anyways, will check with the VXLAN authors. > >> 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. OK, understood. Thanks, Nischal _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
