excuse the top-posting and excuse the meta-post. but do folk here realize that some of us use classic mail readers and it is almost impossible to decode what is being quoted and what is actually being said?
i append what i see (not picking on you, marc. a lot of folk are doing this). and putting [me] in the middle of a mass of text is very little help to the reader. do folk's mail user agents really not have the classic > quoting capability? i spend a minute trying to decode and then give up and hit delete. randy From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 To: Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Lucy yong <[email protected]>, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:43:05 +0200 Hi Aldrin, See my comments below. Thanks, Marc ________________________________ From: Aldrin Isaac [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:24 PM To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) Cc: Aldrin Isaac; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lucy yong Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 Hi Marc, Thanks for the clarifications. Wrt my first question, should we assume that there isn't yet a consensus on whether a VNI can support more than one type of VN? It does not preclude it. I'd like to hear how much interest there is to support this capability. Regarding one-to-one mapping of VNI to VN, this implies that an end-station that needs to be a part of more than one VN will require a separate interface into each associated VNI. This implies that the end-station will require a potentially complex routing table (depending on how aggregateable the address space within a VN is). Unfortunately as an operator I don't find this an acceptable trade off. Can we please address the issue of managing multiple interfaces and complex tables in end-systems? I believe the problem statement needs to capture this. This is not any different than with existing VPN technologies. Supporting multiple interfaces to connect to different subnets and/or nvo3 domains does not make routing really complex. Have you had specific problems with past technologies? Best -- aldrin On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) wrote: Hi Aldrin, See my comments below. Thanks, Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: Aldrin Isaac [mailto:[email protected]<javascript:;>] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:23 PM > To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) > Cc: Lucy yong; [email protected]<javascript:;>; [email protected]<javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: > draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > > Hi Marc, > > Looking for more clarity on the following... > > Should we assume that a VNI can only support L2VNs (VNI = > L2VNI) or L3VNs (VNI = L3VNI) but not both? > > draft-mity-nvo3-use-cases describes a "virtual network > instance interconnecting interface" (VNIF) to interconnect > VNI of different type. An example of a VNIF would be an IRB > (integrated routing and bridging) interface that is common on > "L3 switches". Is this something that draft-lasserre captures? While the current draft focuses on L2VNs and L3VNs as distinct services, no assumptions have been made about the ability to support IRB. A couple of sentences could be added to highlight this possibility. > > Are there any restriction to the topology of a VN or topology > created using a set of VNs. I.e. can (1) a VNI be a member > of multiple VN and (2) can a VN be either hub-and-spoke or > full-mesh? Does draft-lasserre support (1) and (2)? A VN is represented by a VNI created within NVEs that participate in this VN. Hence there is a one-to-one mapping between a VN and VNI. Hub-and-spoke is discussed briefly in this draft. More details are provided in draft-bl-nvo3-dataplane-requirements. > > Best -- aldrin > > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 1:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Extracting a couple of items for additional comment: > > > >> 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. > >> > >> [ml] Like with L2 and L3 PEs, there are L2 and L3 NVEs. > >> [[LY]] Should we consider this as VN service type? I > understand the > >> description but have trouble with the title of NVE service type. > > > > I think VN service type makes sense, as an NVE could conceivably > > support both > > L2 and L3 services for the same end system. OTOH, mixing L2 and L3 > > service types on the same VN requires that the > encapsulation indicate > > the service type (for correct decap processing), and that > would also be useful to note. > > > >> 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. > >> > >> [ml] NVO3 can cope with both virtualized and non-virtualized hosts. > >> [[LY]] Yeah, that is more precise. The point is that the > client edge > >> is not network sites like CEs in a VPN. > > > > Actually the NVE can be in a network node. See Figure 3 and the > > discussion of "traditional physical server" in the last > paragraph on > > p.10, including the statement that the NVE can be in the > ToR. FWIW, > > the Storage Systems example in that paragraph is fine, although one > > can envision storage systems that contain NVEs. > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > >> Of Lucy yong > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:52 AM > >> To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC); Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > >> Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: > >> draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > >> > >> Marc, > >> > >> Please see inline below with [[LY]]. > >> > >> Lucy > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) > [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:23 AM > >> To: Lucy yong; Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > >> Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > >> Subject: RE: [nvo3] call for adoption: > >> draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > >> > >> Hi Lucy, > >> > >> Thanks for your comments. > >> See my comments below prefixed with [ml]. > >> > >> Marc > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:11 AM > >> To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC); Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > >> Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > >> Subject: RE: [nvo3] call for adoption: > >> draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > >> > >> 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
