Thats a fair point. So if the definition was more descriptive of the place in the network and not of the functionality would that address your concern?
-- Paul Unbehagen On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:25 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want to make that point, then go back to the text as it was in the > previous version. Do not make the point by hiding it in a confusing > definition. > > The ToR devices were not what I was concerned about. I can live with saying > they may be routers. I can live with describing them as switches. It was > the Intra-DC devices that I was concerned about. > > Adding marketing confusion to the definitions would create a new issue for me > to be concerned about. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/19/2012 11:06 AM, Paul Unbehagen wrote: >> 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
