> In addition, while you are trying to optimize for one particular > implementation and architecture, the long term results of these decisions > tend to impact many more platforms than the original one. For example, VXLAN > was derived from LISP with the same goals as you are describing here. > However, I suspect that many of the platforms that now implement VXLAN never > had LISP support in the first place. These implementations must now carry the > historical baggage so from a global perspective this did not turn out to be > an optimization after all.
In practice, there really isn’t historical baggage. And if you build something to last 10 years and think it won’t change, having options in the header is good. But changing to a different protocol all together and having different options in one protocol IS exactly the same result. THERE ARE CHANGES for the vendor and the deployer. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
