On 19/03/14 09:31, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 03/19/2014 09:46 AM, Anton Ivanov (antivano) wrote: >> All I can say - bad design. >> >> One change in the encaps and it breaks (probably by design too - you get >> to sell new NICs). >> >> My old comment that we should not be bound in the architecture choices >> by bad designs by any particular vendor is still valid too. Even more >> valid - thanks for illustrating it. > > If you manage to convince vendors to change direction, perfect! > Otherwise VXLAN-gpe will be "done right" but irrelevant due to > lack of backwards compatibility in the real world.
You mean - lack of backward compatibility on 3 specific first generation specialized NICs which are presently shipping, right? So all of us who use more generic hardware which has a checksumming algo which can be adapted to cope, should now abandon any ideas to improve a protocol just because three early examples of technology have been designed in a manner which explicitly forces their buyers to upgrade later. Right? Interesting idea. To say the least. A. _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
