Robert, John will have to answer for CE and PE, as he introduced those acronyms to this discussion ;-).
My comment is that (IMHO, your O will likely be different), OSPF seems to be a more reasonable candidate for hypervisor softswitch implementation by comparison to BGP. This is mostly in the realm of futures, as hypervisor softswitches start out as handling L2 traffic with no IP routing protocol support. If the "oracle" were based on a routing protocol or protocols for information distribution with OSPF being in use closest to the NVEs, I could see an approach where the NVEs directly participate in OSPF. OTOH, my preference would be to put OSPF on network nodes and use some other protocol to do the address mapping lookups from the NVEs to the network nodes, because this preserves OSPF's current scaling properties/expectations wrt the scale of the physical network. In contrast, OSPF in softswitches turns every server into an OSPF participant, thereby changing OSPF's scaling properties wrt the physical network infrastructure by at least an order of magnitude. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:10 PM > To: John E Drake > Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem- > statement-02 > > 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
