Please do not aggravate the mess marketing produced by redefining switch
to include router.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/19/2012 6:17 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
It’s the classic “what is a SWITCH” confusion caused by some marketing
whiz more than a decade ago. I’m not too familiar with what you can or
cannot do within an ID/RFC, but the logical thing to do would be to
define ...
Switch = a network device performing packet forwarding based on L2 or L3
headers, or a combination of both
ToR = ToR switch (unless indicated otherwise)
... or something similar in the General Terminology section.
Kind regards,
Ivan
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
Of *LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:07 PM
*To:* Joel M. Halpern; Benson Schliesser
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02
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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:27 AM
To: Benson Schliesser
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
