I believe that Section 3.1 needs to be significantly revised since it has some 
confusing
statements. I cannot support this draft without a revision of this Section:


" VRF's are a pure routing construct and do not have end-to-end
   significance in the sense that the data plane carries a VRF indicator
   on an end-to-end basis."


-          Why is this a problem? The control plane can propagate the end-to-end

significance and there is nothing that says that the identifier needs to be 
global.

(ie why is a global identifier a requirement? Note, that the framework draft

makes this clear).

"  Instead, the VRF is derived at each hop
   using a combination of incoming interface and some information in the
   frame (e.g., local VLAN tag).  Furthermore, the VRF model has
   typically assumed that a separate control plane governs the
   population of the forwarding table within that VRF."

-          Obviously RFC 4364 does NOT require multiple control planes, (ie one 
for

each VRF as it is suggested in the statement above. The protocol is designed

for multi-tenancy. In an earlier statement, this is clarified, but then it is 
dismissed

here.

"  Thus, a
   traditional VRF model assumes multiple, independent control planes
   and has no specific tag within a data frame to identify the VRF of
   the frame."


-          Both of these statements are incorrect.  The VRF model does NOT 
assume

multiple independent control planes, and it has a tag that identifies frames

that belong in a VRF (as Pedro mentioned it can be an MPLS label in MPLS

over GRE).



There could be other reasons (deployment, familiarity, etc) that RFC4364 cannot 
be
the only solution to this problem space. However, none of the technical reasons 
stated
above make any sense and they cannot be part of the problem statement.


Dimitri





From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benson 
Schliesser
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 6:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); 
[email protected]
Subject: [nvo3] call for adoption: 
draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02

Dear NVO3 Participants -

This message begins a two week Call for Adoption of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02 by 
the NVO3 working group, ending on 30-June-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

Reply via email to