I expressed this on the phone at the interim meeting and was asked to
post with a bit more detail.
According to the call the intended purpose of the requirements document
is to help the WG choose between different proposed dataplane
encapsulation protocols. However, I get the impression
Alia,
Per your comment, we will remove the discussion of E-VPN solutions for issues
associated address migration in draft-merged-nvo3-ts-address-migration, making
the draft purely NVA based.
Can we simply state that there is E-VPN solutions (not discuss it, but
reference other drafts)
Hello NVo3 WG,
We had good sessions of three interim meetings held on 11th Sept, Oct 2nd
and Oct 21st, respectively. This email is to solicit slot requests for
presenting in the NVo3 WG session of IETF 91 to be held in Honolulu, HI.
Final agenda could be found at
Hi Eric,
Thank you for sending this. Some comments in line.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Erik Nordmark nordm...@acm.org wrote:
I expressed this on the phone at the interim meeting and was asked to post
with a bit more detail.
According to the call the intended purpose of the
On 10/21/14 12:33 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
Agreed, but I think there are a few more probably.
Tom,
I think so too - just need to get the specific requirements written down
and get some consensus.
- MUST contain an VNID field. This field MUST be large enough to scale to
100's of thousands
