> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Richard > Li > 发送时间: 2013年7月24日 8:12 > 收件人: Kireeti Kompella; Lucy yong > 抄送: L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; Aldrin Isaac; > [email protected]; UTTARO, JAMES > 主题: Re: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for > l3vpn > > We may be able to get some wisdom from VLAN where both local and global ids > are used. > > The global vlan id is used to build a whole "subnet" across different and > multi-hop Ethernet segments.
Whether a global VN ID in the data packet is required may depend on whether the transit nodes need to know the global VN ID, IMHO. For VLAN, the transit nodes need to know the global VN ID (i.e., VLAN ID) for packet forwarding. For TRILL, the transit RB nodes need to know the global VN ID (i.e., VLAN ID or FGL) for VLAN or FGL pruning. For NVo3, I haven't seen any use case yet and therefore I want to make sure whether there is any use case that I had missed. Best regards, Xiaohu > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Kireeti Kompella > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:46 AM > To: Lucy yong > Cc: [email protected]; L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; Aldrin > Isaac; UTTARO, JAMES > Subject: Re: [nvo3] The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... > for > l3vpn > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 19:28, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Like to hear more the people opinions about: in SDN approach, will global ID > and local ID are equally good (just mater choice) or one is better than other? > > The SDN (centralized) approach makes allocation of global IDs easier. However, > Xiaohu asked a data plane question. Local IDs are much easier for the data > plane. > > BTW, I am not in favor of centralizing everything. > > Kireeti > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
