On 10/6/2016 11:38 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > .... > > > (1) Publish all 3 encapsulations as Informational RFCs. This makes > the working group look indecisive but at least the vendors can go > to market with what they choose with some acknowledgement from IETF. > > > I don't see them going through in the current condition. Geneve says > carry along arbitrary and unspecified data; that's a security/privacy > issue - maybe resolvable with text. Geneve says MUST use path MTU > discovery, but header-size can cause issues to get to encapsulated > packet header to return to the VM.
Most of these proposals are problematic when it comes to MTU and fragmentation issues. Progressing any of them as WG docs would require substantial revision to address these issues. Joe
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
