Anoop, Thanks for the pointer. I would certainly be delighted if NVO3 can quickly agree on and solidify a good solution or even, if need be, two (for experimental).
Alia On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> wrote: > > One of the comments I made at the mic in response to some of the WG > reorganization statements was that the user community is complaining about > lack of standards. > > The reference I would like to point folks to is the following whitepaper > from ONUG: > <quote> > Unfortunately, there are too many different tunneling protocols > and no multi-vendor interoperability between virtual overlay > vendors. > ... > This ambiguity has caused the vendor community to create a > number of disparate mechanisms for state distribution with > very little or no interoperability such as OVSDB and a unicast > approach to VXLAN tunnel creation while others are offering > new protocols such as OpFlex, GENEVE, NVo3, MPLSoGRE, > etc. ONUG is very concerned about this lack of interoperability > and the implications it will have on next generation designs. > </quote> > > You can get the document from here: > http://opennetworkingusergroup.com/onug-white-paper/ > > Anoop > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
