Stewart,
If you recall, last week I suggested that you strike the following paragraph from the proposed NV03 charter: "NVO3 will develop an approach to multi-tenancy that uses a Layer 3 encapsulation rather than relying on traditional L2 isolation mechanisms (e.g., VLANs) to support multi-tenancy. The approach will provide an emulated Ethernet service capable of satisfying typical data center deployments." because I felt it was inconsistent with the rest of the charter. Upon further study, I think the 'inconsistent' may have been too kind. I think a better word might be 'antithetical', because as is pointed out in this paragraph of the charter: "Driven by the requirements and consistent with the gap analysis, the WG may request being rechartered to document solutions consisting of one or more data plane encapsulations and control plane protocols as applicable. Any documented solutions will use existing mechanisms if suitable, or will develop new mechanisms if necessary." development is strictly proscribed from the charter of this group. So, you really should strike the offending paragraph, as I suggested. Also, since we are on the topic, I am not completely happy with the paragraph I quoted just above and would suggest that it be reworded as follows: "Driven by the requirements and consistent with the gap analysis, the WG may request to be re-chartered to document solutions consisting of one or more data plane encapsulations and control plane protocols as applicable. Any documented solutions will use existing standards if suitable, or will develop new standards if the WG determines and documents that no existing standards can serve as an adequate basis for satisfying the requirements." Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:53 AM To: Kireeti Kompella Cc: Yakov Rekhter; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 charter 1530UK 12April On 13/04/2012 04:06, Kireeti Kompella wrote: Hi Yakov, Rather than arguing about layers, I think it would be much better to just explicitly spell out that "NVO3 will develop an approach... that uses encapsulation over IP or MPLS enabled IP packet switched networks (PSN)." That's even better ... and since it was the approach taken by another "overlay" technology, namely PWE3, it seems fitting. What makes me nervous is that in the PWE3 case we spent a lot of time working on an PW/IP and PW/MPLS until the market eventually decided in favour of PW/MPLS and PW/IP for most practical purposes died out. I do not know whether we need IP, MPLS or both in this case, and unfortunately I am not sure how we get firm objective evidence. However we need to be careful that on the one hand the charter does not preempt an objective decision, and on the other hand does not create a mechanism whereby the WG spends a lot of time on technology to support minority deployments. The specific problem is with the ambiguity of the word "or" since it may bind us to doing both even if the evidence supports the need for only one (of type currently unknown), or it may force us to choose when the market is split and we need to support both. My hope was that "layer 3" could be taken to include IP and MPLS in such a way as to allow us to make a more considered decision of {IP, MPLS, IP and MPLS} when we have more evidence. - Stewart
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
