"Global" seems to be used in this discussion and the data plane requirements to mean "unique in the administrative domain" as contrasted to a "local" identifier that is mapped to another value at some points in the domain.
On the other hand, when discussing VN Name in the hyperviser - NVE control plane, global is used in the sense that I understand global - i.e. unique in the world - e.g. a UUID. 24-bit identifiers aren't large enough to be global in that sense. It would be better to use another term when we mean unique in the administrative domain. Pat -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Li Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:12 PM To: Kireeti Kompella; Lucy yong Cc: L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; Aldrin Isaac; [email protected]; UTTARO, JAMES Subject: 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. -----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
