> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Noel, >>> there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, since >>> this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual submission >>> was more appropriate. >>> >>> We just started from the very practical consideration of the proliferation >>> of encapsulations in the data center, and the lack of multiprotocol support >>> in both VXLAN and LISP. >> >> Sorry I have to disagree. The protocols that LISP supports are *IP* >> protocols and the protocols that VXLAN supports are *the rest* since it is >> layer-2 solution. So this appears to be just rearranging the deck chairs. > > This trouble me... why do we want to mix LISP and VXLAN? What is the > gain in it? I only smell complexity. L2 in L3 over L3?
We shouldn't but let the authors reply. If you want to carry more than IP protocols in LISP, then you use the L2 UDP port and carry MAC addresses in LISP. You can carry all of MAC, IPv4, and IPv6 EIDs with one control-plane, the LISP mapping database using LISP-DDT. > How will a mix of LISP and VXLAN benefit the administrators of > datacenters, end-users in the end? The VXLAN authors have to answer that. They came afterwards (by 5 years). Dino > > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no > > (I really start to really dislike gmails new better editor) _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
