Hi David, > 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.
IMHO neither of those is a good idea if we are talking about choice of vehicle to carry control plane propagation to hypervisor.
I am of the opinion that XMPP as proposed in l3vpn-end-systems draft is a much better choice there.
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.
My take is that while "oracle(s)" can participate in dynamic routing towards the core (data center and or wan) on the other side it would be much more convenient to ask them to speak the language which hosts are the most familiar with. Extensible xml schema seems at least as one possible candidate there. I am sure there could be more, but that a good start I think.
Rgs, R. _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
