Subject: Re: [nvo3] unified encapsulation headers for both Layer2 and Layer3 VPN overlays?

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:04:25 +0000

Hi all,

The following two drafts may be useful for us to further this discussion:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-l3vpn-nvgre-vxlan-encap-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drao-bgp-l3vpn-virtual-network-overlays-00

Best regards,
Xiaohu

发件人: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年9月21日 21:44
收件人: Xuxiaohu
抄送: [email-masked]
主题: Re: [nvo3] unified encapsulation headers for both Layer2 and Layer3 VPN overlays?

Hi,

For a number of reasons, including the current "vigorous discussion" on multiple encaps for L2-in-L3, I would STRONGLY URGE the group to not go there.
There are more than enough L3-in-L3 encaps already: sufficient unto the day ....

Regards,
Kireeti.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi all,

It’s well-known that MPLS encapsulation can be used in both Layer2 VPN overlay (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-GRE) and Layer3 VPN overlay (e.g., IP-in-MPLS-in-GRE). Meanwhile, although NVGRE is targeted only for Layer2 VPN overlay (i.e., MAC over IP overlay) scheme at present, the protocol type field in the GRE header however provides a possibility of supporting Layer3 VPN overlay (i.e., IP over IP overlay) if needed in the future. However, as per the encapsulation format described in the current version of VXLAN draft, there is no such protocol type field in the VXLAN header yet. Hence I suggest the VXLAN co-authors could consider using some reserved bits as the protocol type field. In this way, the VXLAN encapsulation header could also be applicable to the Layer3 VPN overlay scheme if needed in the future.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

--
Kireeti