; Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com>; Anoop Ghanwani
> <an...@alumni.duke.edu>; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
>
>
>
> On 11/15/2015 12:47 PM, Suren
org
> Cc: to...@isi.edu; Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com>; Anoop
> Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu>; Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
> <kree...@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
>
> That
v...@broadcom.com>; Anoop Ghanwani
> <an...@alumni.duke.edu>; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
>
> That would be a lot better, though it still suffers from the use
; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
That would be a lot better, though it still suffers from the use of different
codepoints for IPv4 and IPv6.
The concept of version numbers shouldn't be
roadcom.com>; Anoop Ghanwani
> <an...@alumni.duke.edu>; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com>;
> to...@isi.edu
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
>
> Question - why are there two next-pr
adcom.com>; Anoop Ghanwani
<an...@alumni.duke.edu>; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com>;
to...@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Requesting Next Protocol = 0 for Ethernet [
draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt ]
Question - why are there two next-protocols for IP? That's what the IP versi
With Reference to : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01.txt
Dear Authors,
I noticed that below request from Shahram (almost 6 weeks ago) has not been
evaluated and considered in this draft discussion:
Current draft defines the following Next Protocol values:
0x1 : IPv4
0x2 : IPv6
