Thanks Marc, I agree that text would be better. -- Paul Unbehagen
On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:33 AM, "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <[email protected]> wrote: > As a clarification, the text which specified "switches/routers" in -01 was > the proper text and got lost by mistake in -02. > It will be fixed to say "switches/routers" instead of "switches" only. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel > M. Halpern > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:25 PM > To: Paul Unbehagen > Cc: Ivan Pepelnjak; Benson Schliesser; [email protected]; LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) > Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
