On Feb 11, 2014:9:22 AM, at 9:22 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Giles,
> 
>  
> > Of course one may say that I can use L3VPN or L2VPN no need for something 
> > in the middle - fair point. But in the same time this is different from 
> > prohibiting one to inject some host routes and do proxy arp for pair of VMs 
> > which like to talk on the same subnet but happen to be sitting on different 
> > compute nodes.
> 
> but as you yourself have said - if there's no need for it then why add it?  
> There are many different ways those two VMs can communicate already.  I'm not 
> sure we need to invent another 
> 
> And that is reasonable discussion to have here rather then argue that BGP 
> does not scale without providing pain points or that routers behind VM need 
> to talk L2 to other routers behind VM (the latter is in fact possible via 
> overlay over overlay today anyway if someone would desire so). 

        This is indeed the discussion we want to have here. I don't think Giles 
or I were claiming BGP doesn't scale; again, its a matter of whether or not you 
would want to send /32s around as prescribed.

        --Tom


> You may be of opinion that current EVPN or PBB EVPN solve the problem. I 
> agree they solve the problem, but the price is much higher - new development 
> and new protocol extensions are needed to support it. Operating one more 
> protocol is not free too. 
> 
> Here we just have a informational draft illustrating much cheaper option to 
> allow hosts talk on the same subnet cross overlay boundary. I do see this as 
> interesting tool to some of VMs communication requirements. 
> 
>  
> > And while some vendors do fight hard against overlays for tenant 
> > virtualization and would rather see all smartness of the networks in TOR I 
> > am afraid that this ship has already left the harbor .... In the above VMs 
> > are virtualized in the compute's node kernel eliminating any need for big 
> > fat and expensive PEs acting as TOR.
> 
> thanks for putting words in my mouth Robert.  I appreciate it ;)
> 
> You are more then welcome ;-)
> 
> r.
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to