Hello Tom, Paul et al.,
Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but defines a new
protocol that looks similar to VXLAN (demonstrated by need for new UDP
port assignment).
(?) ... (!) interesting, the abstract was not mentioning it although it's a
relevant change IMHO when you
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the questions and comments! Please see inline.
On Jul 14, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Tom Herbert therb...@google.com wrote:
Hi VXLAN-gpe authors,
Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but defines a new
protocol that looks similar to VXLAN (demonstrated by need for
Hi VXLAN-gpe authors,
Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but defines a new
protocol that looks similar to VXLAN (demonstrated by need for new UDP
port assignment).
We are trying to balance re-use of the VXLAN format and the need to support
existing non-GPE hardware
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) pa...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the questions and comments! Please see inline.
On Jul 14, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Tom Herbert therb...@google.com wrote:
Hi VXLAN-gpe authors,
Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but
Tom,
one of the design goals of GPE is to be cost effective when implemented
together with VXLAN and LISP. We do know that those are the two most
deployed protocols out there, and will be out there for quite some time
while any other network virtualization protocol gets deployed. I
believe
Dino,
I believe that using a format that can share as much as possible with
the two protocols deployed today will give a better chance to GPE to be
implemented, as vendors may want a cost effective way to migrate to the
new protocol while preserving compatibility with legacy implementations.
Please find more information on NFVRG including charter at -
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/nfvrg
Please find meeting location and agenda at -
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/nfvrg-ietf-90
Thanks,
Ramki on behalf of the co-chairs
