Hi John/David, Where do you see CE and PE there ?
Is hypervisor softswitch a CE in your opinion ? And all VMs running on it belong to the same tenant ?
Is it a vrf-lite CE and you are proposing to run as many OSPF instances as number of VNs ?
On the other hand if this is a PE I am afraid neither OSPF v2 nor v3 allow you for easy tenant multiplexing and scalable control plane signalling between such PE and the "oracle".
Thx, R.
Snipped, comment inline Sent from my iPhone *From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *[email protected] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:26 AM *To:* [email protected] *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02 Hi Pedro, I will admit that I don’t expect to see BGP implemented/deployed in hypervisor softswitches (although OSPF as the edge protocol for BGP/MPLS VPNs seems more realistic for that implementation location), and hence I’m interested in a standard protocol for NVEs to talk to an “oracle” which could be a set of network nodes that use a routing protocol to distribute information among themselves. JD: Interestingly enough, OSPF v2 & v3 are standard CE-PE interfaces in L3VPNs. _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
