Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Tom, > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> > Joe, >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Joe Touch

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 8/10/2016 10:47 AM, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I have not stated that we should use RTCP/SIP as such, as you said > "using SIP as anything but general inspiration is useful here" is > totally correct. My misinderstanding; glad we're on the same page. > The VTEPs will more and

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

+1 On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Joe, > > In the past 15+ years, I haven't seen this limitation going away. > It is expensive to pass the whole packet through the packet forwarding > logic. > To remove it would require significantly faster I/O to the

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 8/9/2016 11:19 PM, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I should have used Overlay Controller Schemes instead of OCP, all > current overlay solution do have some "signalling" mechanisms to setup > and tear down the tunnels, a bunch of protocols. Probably you could > make extensions to SIP as

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

Hi Joe, I should have used Overlay Controller Schemes instead of OCP, all current overlay solution do have some "signalling" mechanisms to setup and tear down the tunnels, a bunch of protocols. Probably you could make extensions to SIP as well and have that as an Overlay Controller Scheme (OCS),