>> >> Hi VXLAN-gpe authors, >> >> Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but defines a new >> protocol that looks similar to VXLAN (demonstrated by need for new UDP >> port assignment). > > We are trying to balance re-use of the VXLAN format and the need to support > existing non-GPE hardware that might already be deployed. We looked at using > the same port, and the new one, and decided, at this point that a new port is > easier for migration but since the packet format is essentially VXLAN to keep > the VXLAN name.
Paul, this design seems to be going in circles. If a new port is used, why not make the new port for VXLAN mean layer-3 protocols follow? Or better yet, have a demux field after the VXLAN header so you don't have to use VXLAN header bits. Because the P-bit is using a precious bit in the VXLAN/LISP header and the nonce field that can be used for other things (we have history that shows a nonce in the header is a cheap form of obscure security). If you do this then you have no compatibility problems with initial VXLAN and LISP implementations. And, most importantly, there will be less confusion in the marketplace. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
