(change back to the original subject title) For this context, the global VN ID means that the label is used as the VN identifier in the data plane and is allocated per VN basis (maybe by NVA); the local (VN) ID means that the label is allocated by individual NVEs and only has the significance for the NVE that creates it. Thus, each NVE has to distribute the local (VN) ID to all the other NVEs that are the members of the same VN, which requires some distributed control plane capability. The NVE may create one local ID for a VN or several local IDs associated to a VN.
Local ID mechanism provides some flexibility to NVE in egress forwarding process. However, if the major application of NVO3 is for the case that NVE resides on server, i.e. NVE and end-points resides on a same device, is this flexibility necessary? Sometimes "flexibility" also means "complexity". When using separated NVE forwarder and NVE controller, and having SDN based NVE controller, will local ID distribution make this solution more complex than using global VN ID? NVO3 requires supporting both NVE local and NVE remote. Can one solution fit both applications well? or we need more than one solution and let providers to choose? Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Pat Thaler > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM > To: Richard Li; Kireeti Kompella; Lucy yong > Cc: L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; Aldrin Isaac; > [email protected]; UTTARO, JAMES > Subject: [nvo3] The meaning of "global" > > "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 > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
