On 4/8/15 7:20 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi Erik,
But I couldn't tell from the emails on the BIER list whether the
constraints on the first nibble value is a strict requirement in all
cases, or whether it is conditional on something (and if so, what is
the condition).
The conditions that I have thought of include: 1) the encapsulation is
sensitive to packet misordering; 2) the encapsulation may be transported over
an MPLS PSN; 3) LSRs within that MPLS PSN may use the contents of the MPLS
payload to select the ECMP path.
Those are conditions when the misordering would happen. But are you
saying that any LSR is free to use the MPLS payload (including looking
for 4 and 6 in the first nibble) to determine whether the packet is IPv4
and IPv6 and use what it thinks are IPv4 and IPv6 fields for ECMP purposes?
Thanks,
Erik
Best regards,
Xiaohu
Once I know that answer we can definitely add some text pointing out the issue.
Thanks,
Erik
Best regards,
Xiaohu
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 2015年3月26日 5:01
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
