I probably would have sent a private comment, but not bothered the list,
if it was just ToR entities. But the document has changed what the ToR
entities are connect to from being switches / routers to being switches.
It is that change which concerns me, and for which I seek explanation.
Yours,
Joel
PS: I actually agree that the common usage is ToR switch, and the common
deployment is to put L2 devices in that place in the topology.
On 6/18/2012 7:20 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
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
