Xiao Hu, 

Do you mean this TLV in your draft?

          0                   1                   2                   3
          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Type=VN Info  |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |    Length     |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                                                               |
         |                 Originating NVE's IP Address                  |
         |                         (128 bits)                            |
         |                                                               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Resv (8 bits) |                VN ID (24 bits)                |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |    Resv (12 bits)     |       Local MPLS Label (20 bits)      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         :                                                               :
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Resv (8 bits) |                 VN ID (24 bits)               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |    Resv (12 bits)     |       Local MPLS Label (20 bits)      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


So you are assuming to use the list of VNs. If a NVE participate in 20 VNs (or 
more for TOR based NVE), there will be 20* (4 bytes). 

Correct?

Why need to list the Local MPLS Label? What if there is no MPLS used?

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Xuxiaohu 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:30 AM
To: Tom Herbert; Linda Dunbar
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [nvo3] is it resonsable that 
draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution-01 suggests NVE using bit-map to 
represent its supported VNs?

> > Therefore, I think it is better to have a flag indicating if the VNs 
> > are listed individually, Upper/Lower ranges, or bit mapped.
> >
> I wouldn't use a flag for that, it's probably cleaner to define 
> another TLV type that gives a list of VNIDs. Either the list or bit-map can 
> be used interchangeably.

There has been a draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-nvo3-isis-cp-00) 
talking about that approach. By the way, we have implemented a demo on Quagga 
(installed on Ubuntu) which is capable of interworking with OVS. 

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> Tom
> 
> >
> >
> > Any other suggestions?
> >
> >
> >
> > Linda
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to