Folks. To pick up the discussion on the list where we left off.
Currently we have VXLAN/NVGRE/EVPN/IP-VPN/VPLS in there as ‘potential solutions’. These solutions dont compare at all. VxLAN/NVGRE/VPLS all use flood-and-learn as a control plane + some ways of creating the emulated ethernet service end to end. IP-VPN and E-VPN uses BGP as a control plane, but in its current form is using an MPLS or MPLSoGRE encapsulation. NVO3’s aim was to see how the defacto encapsulations like VXLAN and NVGRE would need to evolve from a control plane perspective to support a greater set of services, remove the need for multicast, add more scale , etc. So why are we comparing these 5 options ? Sounds like comparing bananas to kiwis to me. Secondly, i though there was a rough consensus that we should ‘choose’ a couple of encapsulation (like e.g. VXLAN, VXLAN-GPE, NVGRE, etc), and then see how existing control planes would work across these encapsulations, to both setup connectivity/create the tunnels, as well as carrying the reachability information. Draft-nvo3-hertoghs is doing essentially that, for LISP. Wouldn’t that be a better way forward going forward? Yves
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
