Hi Joe, my $.02 in-line and tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, all, > > > On 10/5/2016 10:29 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not > > converging on resolving issues, why don't we just live with existing > > encaps like VXLAN etc? Why would making these RFC'es is important by > > standards body, when it is about business rather than technical ones? > > My concerns are as follows: > > - it seems fine to support multiple encaps, but it's not clear whether > any of the existing encapsulation protocols CAN be "fixed" by OAM > - IMO, the WG shouldn't waste time trying to fix this all > GIM>> I think that common OAM, i.e. Fault Management and Performance Measurement, may normalize overlay network operation by presenting single data model. At the same time, it will support and use any special capabilities of the particular encapsulation. > > I.e., I would suggest that: > > - any encaps that is desired and sufficiently useful should be supported > BUT any deficiencies should be noted, rather than wasting time trying to > "fix" them > - any work on a new encaps needs to be preceded by a requirements doc > that explains what is needed and why; the summary of issues with > existing encaps protocols seems like a list of preferences, not strict > requirements > GIM>> Wholeheartedly agree and would note that that equally applies to work on the Control Plane and OAM. > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
