On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) < [email protected]> wrote:
> ** > Hi Lizhong, > > Thanks for your support. A few comments about the points you raised: > > 1. If a stack is to be added, the field that you have called "Tenant > Network Identifier" should be replaced with "Overlay Header (includes a VN > context)" > [Lizhong] yes, should be an encapsulation header include "tenant network identifier". Thanks Lizhong > 2. We will add some text about the use of a "centralized" approach in a > future revision > 3. This section is covered in details in the nvo3-dataplane-requirements > draft. A small section could be added to the framework draft if deemed > useful > > Marc > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Lizhong Jin > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2012 6:05 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); > [email protected]; Benson Schliesser > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > > Hi Benson, Matthew, > I support the work of this document, but there is indeed much to improve > the draft. > Please consider the following points which have been sent privately > before, and hope to see the comments from the list. > 1. I think it is very important to have a generic protocol layer model for > a framework document, which maybe like below and also mentioned in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kj-nvo3-pion-architecture-00.txt. And > protocol stack reference model is also missing. > +-------------------------------------------+ > | L2/L3 Customer Payload | > | ~~~ | > +-------------------------------------------+ > | Tenant Network Identifier | > +-------------------------------------------+ > | IP/MPLS Layer | > +-------------------------------------------+ > | Data-Link | > +-------------------------------------------+ > | Physical Layer | > +-------------------------------------------+ > 2. The centralized control plane is not mentioned in the framework, which > would be an important option for NVO3. > 3. Load balancing or ECMP is not mentioned in the draft, which is also > important for datacenter. Maybe I missed in the draft. > > Regards > Lizhong > > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: "Matthew \(Matthew\) Bocci" <[email protected]>, >> [email protected] >> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:51:20 -0500 >> Subject: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 >> 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
