Hi Anoop,
Due to the fact that a variety of Tunnels could be used under the NVO3
architecture, as an example, below figure illustrates the format of MPLS packet
over Geneve Tunnel.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Les,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:48:51PM +, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> A few more thoughts - maybe these are more helpful than my previous comments
> - maybe not. I am sure you will let me know.
>
> Protocol extensions allowing negotiation and/or advertisement of support for
> larger
Hi Xiao Min,
I think we would need more detail around the use case below. What does the
MPLS packet over Tunnel look like?
Thanks,
Anoop
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:37 PM wrote:
> Hi Anoop,
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e.
Hi Anoop,
Thanks for your comments.
Considering a scenario where TS1 has an MPLS access (i.e. MPLS-Packet over
Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, TS3 has an Ethernet access (i.e. MAC-Frame over
Tunnel between NVEs) to VNI1, then how can TS1 and TS3 share one VAP?
Best Regards,
Xiao
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your comments.
I don't think the VNI could own IP address and MAC address, if the BFD messages
are originated and terminated at the VNI, then what addresses would be used by
the BFD messages?
As to the VAP, RFC8014 defines it as below:
"On the NVE side, a VAP is a
>>>
Some people may argue that all Tenant Systems connecting to the same
Virtual Network MUST share one VAP, if that's true, then VAP1 and VAP3
should merge into one VAP and my explanation doesn't work. Copying to NVO3
WG to involve more experts, hope for your clarifications and comments.
>>>
I
