Carlos, The technical objections raised in the face-to-face meeting were all about extensibility being a concern. This, those concerns need to be addressed.
I would recommend listening to the recording to remind or learn what conversation happened. Regards, Alia On Jul 23, 2016 7:47 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com> wrote: > Alia, > > Just trying to understand — is there a particular reason why you pick on > extensibility? What set of extension requirements do you have in mind? > > The historical evolution of data path encaps seems to indicate a > decreasing (not increasing) number of extensions and capability to support > them (e.g., L2TPv2 -> L2TPv3, Original GRE -> Current GRE). > > Thanks, > > — Carlos. > > On Jul 23, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > David, > > Thank you. This is helpful information. > Can you comment at all on extensibility & support for VXLAN-GPE & the > other options? > > Regards, > Alia > > On Jul 22, 2016 3:41 PM, "David Melman" <davi...@marvell.com> wrote: > >> > Though if someone knows of a vendor who plans to support vxlan-gpe on >> their already installed vxlan supporting hardware please speak up. I >> certainly did not check with every vendor. >> >> >> >> As a silicon vendor, Marvell have the same silicon that supports both >> VXLAN and VXLAN-GPE. Our customers can indeed support both on the same >> hardware. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> *From:* nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Hudson >> *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 11:58 AM >> *To:* Dino Farinacci >> *Cc:* Matthew Bocci; Tom Herbert; nvo3@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > - VXLAN-GPE does not appear compatible with VXLAN-GPE. If a VXLAN host >> receives a VXLAN packet for some protocol other than Ethern the payload >> will be misinterpreted. A separate port number was required. I assume that >> a user using VXLAN in HW must upgrade HW to use VXLAN-GPE >> >> Tom, one clarification. Did you really mean VXLAN-GPE is not compatible >> with VXLAN-GPE or did you mean VXLAN? >> >> This is how a VXLAN-GPE encapsulator (an upgraded system) can talk to a >> VXLAN decapsulator (an existing system) with the LISP control-plane: >> >> (1) The encapsulator does a lookup on a MAC address to the mapping system. >> (2) What gets retunred is the decapsultor’s IP address and an >> encapsulation format. In this case the encapsulation format is VXLAN. >> (3) The VXLAN-GPE supuported encapsulator then encapsulates packets with >> UDP port 4789. >> >> I am told you can do this with BGP as well by negotiating what >> encapsulations are supported. >> >> >> >> However, most product managers are not nearly as clever as you are Dino, >> and as far as I know Users who today have HW that supports vxlan will have >> to buy new switches or line cards to support vxlan-gpe. >> >> >> >> Though if someone knows of a vendor who plans to support vxlan-gpe on >> their already installed vxlan supporting hardware please speak up. I >> certainly did not check with every vendor. >> >> >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> >> Dino >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> nvo3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> "Do not lie. And do not do what you hate." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> nvo3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >> _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
