Alia,
I assume that this is a change of subject in part to
demonstrate that we
can in fact have a technical discussion on this list. :)
But the question is a reasonable example whether that is the
case or not.
IMO, two of the biggest drivers for this work in the IETF are
location and
identity separation, and converged networking.
Just as examples, the work being looked into in NVo3 is one
example of
one aspect of the first case (where end-user or server application locations are
being separated from specific network entry points or physical servers
accessible
using IP addresses, for example) and both PWE3 and L2VPN are two currently
active examples of the second case (where - for instance - Ethernet traffic is
to
be carried over an IP network).
I think the problems these examples are solving are
self-evident. That
may not be true for other cases.
--
Eric
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 5:34 PM
To: heasley
Cc: Dave Crocker; IETF Disgust
Subject: Overlays and encapsulations (was Re: Engineering discussions )
In the last few years, there seems to be a drive towards overlays and additional
packet encapsulations. What problems do you see these as solving? Is there a
more focused way to consider the drivers and downsides?
Thoughts?
Alia
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, heasley
<heas(_at_)shrubbery(_dot_)net<mailto:heas(_at_)shrubbery(_dot_)net>> wrote:
Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:10:27AM +0000, Dave Crocker:
The phrasing of your suggestion presumes that you are currently
prevented from having those discussions. But of course you aren't.
I believe the point is to separate general technical discussion from the
general everything else discussion, such as the draft-how-not-to-be-a-
wanker discussion, so that those here just for the technical aspects of
IETF need not wade through it. Which I support.