+1. Also, it might be better to have a base overlay module and protocol specific modules to avoid duplication & force consistency. For ex, inner-tag-removal may well be common to more than one overlay protocol.
-- Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: nvo3 <[email protected]> on behalf of "S. Davari" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "S. Davari" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 2:24 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [nvo3] Issue with draft-chen-nvo3-vxlan-yang-02 >Hi, > >I like to repeat my comments in today’s NVO3 meeting. This draft goes way >beyond the RFC and accepted VXLAN drafts. It introduces new modes that are not >required and not supported in any implementation. Such as > L2 interface to VNID mapping or MAC_DA to VNID mapping. > >I would like to only see VLAN mapping to VNID, which is consistent with VXLAN >RFC and drafts, else I am against this draft becoming a WG draft,. > >Thx >Shahram Davari >Broadcom > > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
