Hi Matthew and All, happy New Year and best wishes. I think that, in addition to the support of IP, a tunnel point of the Geneve tunnel will support, obviously, Geneve encapsulation and, thus, should be able to support action OAM identified by a new Ether Type value. With this approach, an active OAM packet would not require an inner IP/UDP header.
Your comments, questions, and suggestions are most welcome. Content contributions are always encouraged and are greatly appreciated. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < [email protected]> wrote: > Folks > > > > It is important that we get consensus on this topic in order to move the > OAM work forward. > > > > Please read the draft and comment on the issues raised below. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Matthew > > > > *From: *Dacheng Zhang <[email protected]> on behalf of Greg Mirsky < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Monday, 2 December 2019 at 19:49 > *To: *NVO3 <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[nvo3] Active OAM encapsulation for Geneve > > > > Dear All, > > though there was no formal discussion of draft-mmbb-nvo3-geneve-oam > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mmbb-nvo3-geneve-oam-00> in Singapore, > I've captured one comment that is, in my view, is very much relevant to > resolving the question posted in the draft: > > Not all stacks support MPLS encapsulation. > > Consequently, the proposed in the third paragraph of Section 2.1 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mmbb-nvo3-geneve-oam-00#section-2.1> > use of MPLS GAL is not a viable solution. Could people familiar with the > deployments share their expertise and experiences? > > > > Regards, > > Greg >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
