IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model

Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <arnatal@ac.upc.edu> Fri, 14 August 2015 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <arnatal@ac.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BE71ACD43 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L_gUcQv0BqVN for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A2F1ACD36 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw-2.ac.upc.es (gw-2.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.8]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7E9eLIk014953 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:40:21 +0200
Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by gw-2.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A457297A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:39:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so42212064lag.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.152.87.116 with SMTP id w20mr43091113laz.119.1439552367818; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.24.73 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55CDA601.2020308@lispmob.org>
References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <55CDA601.2020308@lispmob.org>
From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <arnatal@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:39:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+YHcKEnXd8zc_MTCcu=FssgB-gf5nn1hxhTU9tuJ+WE6q41dA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lori Jakab <lori@lispmob.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c237c484ff76051d43e7f4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/yUE1x2xfR9gkMBbzN_y37Bw1rOc>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:39:32 -0000

>
> > In this context the WG should also decide whether just an
> extended/enhanced
> > data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger
> and
> > allow as well to support multiple headers type?
> > Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG
> > (e.g.  VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.)
>
> I think supporting multiple headers is the better option.
>
> I also think that multiple header support makes a lot of sense

Alberto

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email