Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] overlay encapsulation group

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:43:47 -0700

Hi Fred,

Sorry this is a little late, but I wanted to respond to this thread.
Please look at Identifier Locator Addressing
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-00). This is along
the lines of using IPv6 without encapsulation for network
virtualization (similar to your idea to use flow label in IPv6 for
tenant ID). In ILA we encode tenant IDs the their address into IPv6
use Identifier/Locator split (borrowing concept from ILNP).

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:25:19 +0000

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Tom Herbert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 

Take a look at the attached. Anything like that?

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:43:00 +0000

> use Identifier/Locator split (borrowing concept from ILNP).

Let me be a little more clear. I ripped of the email a bit ago and then realized you guys already had the file.

I’m no longer thinking about the flow label. I have a colleague that is interested in a tripartite label, as it’s part of his Phd. However, the rest of use are putting into bits 104..127 of the address - the last 24 bits of the IID. I’m not stuck on “24”, but it seems like something the operator won’t need to change quickly. That is at the top of appendix B, and section B.5.