From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 7:50 AM To: nvo3; draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe Subject: [nvo3] comments for draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe
Hi Authors, Several comments when I review the draft. 1. Since you define the I bit in the 8bit-flags, it is better to define what if receiving packet with I-bit set to 0. Could we define I-bit with 0 as public packets which will not do any isolation process among VNI? It is useful when we only want to use the transportability of VXLAN-GPE, instead of isolation ability. Lucy: Good point. This is related to the protocol scope. Current VXLAN-gpe protocol mandates I-bit set to 1 like VXLAN. Should we expand the protocol to support I-bit set to 0? If not, receiving should ignore and drop the packet with I-bit set to 0, which just a clarification. If yes, what the new scope should be? Lucy 2. It seems the DiffServ and ECN marking are missing in the document. ________________________________ Regards Lizhong
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
