Xiaohu,
You're getting ahead of things, a bit.
It is not the purpose of the Gap Analysis to determine how to fix the
gaps.
The purpose of the Gap Analysis is to compare existing candidate approaches to
the
requirements being defined in the NVO3 working group - to determine where the
existing candidate technologies/approaches may fall short.
It is after this analysis is done that we - as a working group - would
then be
in a position to make some decisions as to what work may need to be done for
each
candidate in order to meet the requirements we've determined.
Once we've done that, then we can look at farming the specific work out
to
other working groups, or re-chartering NVO3 to include fixing what's missing.
If you are aware of specific gaps in L3VPN technologies - against
specific
requirements that have been agreed on by the working group - then please let us
know what those gaps are and we will evaluate including them in the gap
analysis
draft.
An information draft of the type you describe is not currently in scope
for
NVO3, as it would be essentially a "solution" draft for using L3VPN. We can't
stop
you (or anyone else) from writing such a draft, of course.
I think you (or whoever) should be careful, however, to ensure that
this
draft is aligned with requirements being developed and agreed to in NVO3, or it
is very likely that any such draft will simply add to the noise at the moment.
Also, any such draft could not be adopted by the NVO3 working group
until
after it is re-chartered to work on solutions, recommended practice or
applicability
work.
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:48 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] About gap analysis on L3VPN [RFC4365]
Hi all,
I'm glad to see that this issue is mentioned in the NVo3 chairs' slides as well
(i.e., some references to L3VPN technology-based DC VPN approaches are useful).
Unfortunately, this issue is not discussed further after the survey of
adoption of NVGRE and VXLAN drafts. My doubt is in which WG the L3VPN
technology-based DC VPN drafts should be pursued (L3VPN WG or NVo3 WG?).
Best regards,
Xiaohu
________________________________________
发件人: [email protected] [[email protected]] 代表 Xuxiaohu
[[email protected]]
发送时间: 2013年7月31日 22:43
到: [email protected]; [email protected]
主题: About gap analysis on L3VPN [RFC4365]
Hi all,
I noticed that L3VPN [RFC4365] is listed as one of the candidata technologies
in the NVo3 gap analysis doc. However, IMHO, the current mechanism defined in
RFC4365 alone couldn't support VM mobility which is one of the basic
requirements of DC VPN. Hence, I believe it's much worthwhile to have an
informational draft describing how to reuse the L3VPN mechanism for DC VPN
before performing gap analysis on the L3VPN technology.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
