On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2/16/2017 3:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> Admittedly, without any actual TLVs defined in Geneve all of this is >> all just speculation on my part! >> >> Tom > Agreed, and more specifically, regardless of the flexibility of TLVs in > general, if the negotiation protocol specifies a fixed set of them, each > with fixed, known length, then even though the TLV allows flexibility in > what COULD appear, a given pair of endpoints can rely on a fixed set > that is easy to parse in parallel. > Sure, if you require protocol negotiation to precede use of the dataplane then not only can we define the required order of TLVs, but we can also define the allowable set of TLVs that each side can send. The concept of having ignorable TLVs could just go away (that is a good thing IMO). Option negotiation is probably one of things that mades TCP options deployable and avoids the concept of ignoring options after negotiation.
But, as I said this idea creates a new dependency on a control plane which is TBD. I'm afraid this could be a opening a Pandora's box of new complexity that the group didn't bargain for... Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
