On 3/25/15 2:23 PM, Lucy yong wrote:
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.
Lucy,
which considerations in the draft are different for the two types you
suggest?
Thanks,
Erik
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
