It was certainly not a deliberate change to imply that L3 was not needed...
Could you suggest which sentence(s) need clarification? Thanks, Marc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:27 AM To: Benson Schliesser Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 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
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
