On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jesse Gross <jgr...@vmware.com> wrote: > Sure, probably all of the hardware implementations have some limits on their > ability to handle the full breadth of Geneve options. Geneve was > intentionally designed to be very future proof and support limits beyond > what I would realistically expect people to implement/use in the near > future. The more interesting question is whether it is possible to support a > useful set for what we need today. Unfortunately, I can’t really give > specifics for different implementations (in the cases that I know) but let > me try to make some generalizations and you can follow up with individual > vendors if you need more details. > It would great if TLV processing in the HW data path is now a solved problem and we can soon start productively defining and using TLVs in various protocols with worry (I would like to at least use IPv6 extensions headers for instance). But, AFAIK that is not the current reality. Maybe some HW designers on this alias can chime in...
Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
