Ivan is making a good point that switch's acting as ToR's have routing capability in them as well. This should be documented as a state of reality.
-- Paul Unbehagen On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
