Here is a suggestion to the draft. There are two distinct encapsulation purposes. 1) an encapsulation for tunneling purpose, i.e. transport related encapsulation, e.g. nvo3. 2) an encapsulation for a service, i.e. transport independent encapsulation, e.g. sfc.
Considerations for two types of encapsulations have difference. It is good for the draft to point out that and give separate considerations. Thanks, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations I presented part of this at the most recent NVO3 interim meeting.The full 12 areas of considerations where presented at RTGWG earlier this week. The draft is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtg-dt-encap/ and the slides are at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-rtgwg-8.pdf There is probably additional things in there to consider for NVO3, and advice that can be reused to make it easier to move NVO3 forward. Regards, Erik _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
