Hi, Joel. I would like for the authors to respond with their own comments. But speaking only for myself (as an individual):
I think that common usage of the unqualified term "ToR" generally refers to a "ToR switch". While the term "ToR" literally refers to a location, and could be used to describe a "ToR router" or "ToR storage array" etc, in my experience the definition in the framework draft is fairly accurate. (And moreover, "switch" isn't necessarily limited to L2... forwarding != routing, and encap / tunneling makes this even more confusing.) But regardless, I think the definition of "ToR" is more-or-less inconsequential to the framework. We should get it right, of course. But it's more important that we define the NVE correctly. And the NVE could perhaps be resident in many types of device, including a device that is not exactly a router but does have L3 interface(s). In the draft, the ToR concept is introduced in an "example of multi-tier DC network architecture". I know from experience that there are many possible variations on where the access and aggregation layers are located. Do you think the authors should make the example more generic, perhaps change ToR to "access" or something like that? It's not clear to me what's best here - suggestions would be appreciated. Cheers, -Benson On Jun 18, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I sent the comment below to the authors, upon reviewing the diffs from the > previous version of this draft. I would appreciate clarification on this > issue before the WG adopts this document as a basis for further work: > > In looking at the latest revision of this draft, the text seems to have moved > from describing the devices at the ToR as switches / routers to refering to > them as just switches. I can not tell if this change is because the authors > understand switch to include IP forwarding device (possibly with IP routing > protocol support), or if there is a change in capabilities envisioned. > If the former, it should be stated explicitly, since it is an unusual usage. > If the later, I am confused as the document then very clearly states that the > data center interconnect devices (now referred to in section 1.3 as switches) > are L3 capable devices. In fact, the premise of the document requires such > L3 capable devices (usually known as routers.) Thus, teh sentence "Core > switches are usually Ethernet switches, but can also support routing > capabilities" seems very strange. switches != routers. And this document > and the WG charter requires those devices to support L3 capabilities. > > Thank you, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 6/18/2012 5:51 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> Dear NVO3 Participants - >> >> This message begins a two week Call for Adoption of >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 by the NVO3 >> working group, ending on 02-July-2012. >> >> Please respond to the NVO3 mailing list with any statements of approval or >> disapproval, along with any additional comments that might explain your >> position. Also, if any NVO3 participant is aware of IPR associated with this >> draft, please inform the mailing list and/or the NVO3 chairs. >> >> Thanks, >> -Benson & Matthew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
