Hi guys, I looked at the draft and here are my first pass comments:
1. Abstract - I am not happy with the mention of NIC in the abstract, what happens in case of LOM's. I think we should just state network hardware instead of NIC. 2. Abstract - I agree with the idea of the statement: Use of an overlay-based approach enables scalable deployment on large network infrastructures. >From the edge perspective however overlays cause scalability limitations, however P2P models work well as the edge is not loaded (take the case of IPsec tunnels versus MPLS VPN). So I think you may want to clarify the statement. 3. Introduction - We talk about tenant having expectation of separation of resources. We however only talk of traffic separation in the whole document. Are there other resources we are considering here? If so we may want to state them. 4. In the document the assumption seems to be that each end station can connect to "a" virtual network. Is that what we intend to state or do we also consider connecting to multiple networks - though for each we could have a different MAC address? 5. Section 2.1 - In my view Multi-tenancy and elasticity impose different requirements and should be treated as different problems. 6. Section 2.2 - Besides retaining IP/ MAc, we also need to retain the port numbers, assume TCP. 7. Section 2.2 - We talk about "today" IP address based on ToR. I think we should state in traditional DC etc. Also it should go before we talk about VM/ vMotion etc. 8. Section 2.5 - I think another idea should be that we need to allow the tenant to do addressing irrespective of the infrastructure, to have clear tenant/ provider boundaries. 9. Section 2.6, another use case is the fact that there will be communication required between devices in the DC and end points in the branch/ campus network, which may not support the NVO3 functionality. 10. Section 2.7, why would sparsely populated members in a DC be highly distributed, as a general characteristic. 11. Section 2.7, though the network infrastructure is administered by a single domain, in my view the virtual infrastructure should be independent of the physical one and should be operated by the tenant infrastructure. Look at the case of Vyatta like routers that can be spun on demand. Typo -------- 1. s/ resiliancy/resiliency 2. s/ trade offs/ tradeoffs Thanks, Vishwas
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
