Xiaohu, You raise a good point. The keyword is *ALONE*; without the additional functionality added to L3VPN, it would not be a suitable candidate for DC VPN. Items to discuss would be host-routing(ie. /32, /128), arp proxy, and arp localisation.
Truman On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for your comments, and please see my response inline. > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Eric Gray [mailto:[email protected]] > > 发送时间: 2013年8月28日 3:23 > > 收件人: Xuxiaohu; [email protected]; [email protected] > > 主题: RE: About gap analysis on L3VPN [RFC4365] > > > > 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. > > Agree. However, the L3VPN technology ALONE as described in [RFC4364] is > unsuitable to be listed as a candidate approach since it alone couldn't > allow VM migration without IP renumbering, which has been recognized as one > of the fundamental requirements of DC VPN. Instead, the combination of > existing L3VPN and ARP proxy technologies deserves to be considered as an > existing candidate approach. Therefore, we may need an informational draft > which describes how to combine the L3VPN and ARP proxy technologies for > subnet extension as a reference for the gap analysis. In this way, it would > be more helpful for us to find what's still missing in this candidate > approach. > > > 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. > > Sure, the informational draft that I mentioned above needs to be aligned > with the requirements being developed and agreed to in NVO3. Hence it's > better to adopt this draft by the L3VPN WG with the review of NVO3 WG, IMHO. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
