Eric,
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Eric Gray
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
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. J
But the question is a reasonable example whether that is
the case or not.
It's something that struck me as being interesting to discuss and having
general appeal and
benefiting from the perspective of many areas. :-)
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).
Yes, I agree that identity separation is a driver. I'm not as persuaded
that converged
networking is driving new overlays and encapsulations - just b/c
pseudo-wires have been
around for about 10 years.
I think the problems these examples are solving are
self-evident. That
may not be true for other cases.
I'm, of course, more interested in whether there are common drivers and
whether all the
solutions need to be point solutions or are more generalizable.
Alia
--
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> 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.