Marc,
Here are some comments on this draft:
1) The VN (or VNI?) in the doc. is an overlay network that is transported over
the tunnels. These tunnels are provided by the underlying network. Why describe
the tunnel as Tunnel Overlays or Tunneling Overlay in the doc.? It should be
the tunnel or the tunnel provided by underlying network.
2) section 2.3, why call it NVE service type? Should we call it VN (or VNI)
service type? One NVE may terminate both L2 VNI and L3 VNI. NVE is equivalent
to PE in L2VPN/L3VPN. We did not have service type for PE and had service type
for VPN.
3) Suggest to illustrate a VN packet structure in data plane and state:
the tunneling may in turn be tunneled over other intermediate
tunnels. It is also possible that intra DC and inter DC tunnels are stitched
together to form an end-
to-end tunnel between two NVEs.
+-------------------------------------------+
| L2/L3 Tenant Payload |
+-------------------------------------------+ Overlay network
| VN Context |
+-------------------------------------------+ ---------
| Tunnel Source Addresses |
+-------------------------------------------+ Underlying network
| Tunnel Destination Address |
+-------------------------------------------+
4) Text: Different IP tunneling options (GRE/L2TP/IPSec) and tunneling
options (BGP VPN, PW, VPLS) are available for both Ethernet and IP
formats. Comments: should also mention LSP tunnel too.
5) It is not clear to me when an NVE resides on DC GW, the VNI on the NVE
associates to a logical interface on a port facing WAN. Do we describe the
interface as VAP or not? In this case, the logical interface does not connect
to end system.
6) For the pros of overlay network, it should state that the overlay
architecture eliminates IP
subnet constraints in the underlying network when VMs move. This makes VM
mobility easier.
7) It is important to state that the major difference between other overlay
network technology and NVO3 is that
the client edges of the NVO3 network are individual virtualized hosts and
not network sites.
8) The doc. often refers NVO3 as a service. It may not true for DC. The
service in DC is about compute, storage, networking, and applications. In this
case, NVO3 provides the networking capability but not a service itself.
9) Consider a section about overlay network OAM.
10) overlay node is not defined but used in text. I think it should be NVE.
Cheers,
Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:48 AM
To: Lucy yong; Benson Schliesser; [email protected]
Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]
Subject: RE: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02
Hi Lucy,
Thanks for supporting this draft.
If you do have specific concerns about the draft content, we can discuss these
on the list. But this would contradict your first sentence below...
Note that changes in -02 are only related to terminology (expanded section) and
the alignment of such terminology in the rest of the draft.
I won't comment on your last emails about the process (which Stewart alrady
addressed in his mail).
But I'd ask that you change the subject of future emails wrt process in order
not to confuse the list.
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy
yong
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 5:03 PM
To: Benson Schliesser; [email protected]
Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02
Hi Ben and Matt,
I want to say that the draft is well written and thanks to authors. I support
this work.
I also want to raise a question regarding the WG process.
Last IETF (IETF83) had NVo3 BOF.(I heard that was well done) NVo3 WG is just
formed on May 1 2012. The framework draft 00 was just published in March 2012.
The 02 uploaded recently has fair amount of changes from 01.
Why do the WG want rapidly adopting the draft into WG draft. Are there some DC
operator want this badly? It seems the time line in the charter is not the
reason. Frankly, this set of works are pretty new to IETF people. It should
give people more time to think and contribute.
Regards,
Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benson
Schliesser
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 4:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Matthew (Matthew) Bocci; [email protected]
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
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
