On 2/16/2017 3:45 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> 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... You need a control plane to setup the endpoints of a tunnel anyway. Indicating a fixed set of features for that tunnel is as easy as "use Bob", where "Bob" is defined elsewhere.
Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
