On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Elzur, Uri <uri.el...@intel.com> wrote: > +1 on starting w MD Type = 1 > > Not sure I understand the concern expressed with " implementations that don't > implement TLVs will become deployed and then when there is a use for them > it's no longer possible." - why will it not be possible to add MD Type=2 > later?
As I said, it's a classic problem with IP options. Classic enough that people frequently content that TLVs are not usable at all because they don't get implemented which then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. I think I've been extremely clear on this matter. I also think that I've been extremely consistent - I think I've said the same thing on every review of this patch series, so it should not exactly be a surprise. However, the bottom line is I want to see a complete implementation of the protocol and not a half measure that will catch people by surprise or limit future usage. That seems 100% reasonable to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
