> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the > protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has been pretty good. > Both the number of uses of Geneve and implementations have increased and as > time has gone on, the uses have take more advantage of the flexibility and > have not run into any significant implementation issues (either software or > hardware).
Jesse, In the list of TLV definitions you sent out I could only discern two actual TLVs that have been defined. Cilium and VmWare stuff are marketing slides, and an offhand reference to Geneve TLV in RCO draft is by no means a specification. For comparison GUE has six defined formally in I-Ds. So unless you're holding out a whole bunch of development, I'm not seeing that the "inability to have a significant number of extensions" is a material issue with GUE. Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
