Hi Lizhong,
Thanks for your review and comments. Yes, our draft is focused on L3 solutions for its scalability and all IP application support. Ø Since this is a Problem Statement and Requirements, it would be better if it did not have many contents of solution specific, e.g, BGP, MPLS label. Since we are talking L3 VPN, therefore IP, VPN, GRE, BGP, MPLS come into the discussion. Wouldn't this be the same nature as TRILL, VLAN, etc. being discussed in draft-natern-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement? May be we should look into how to resolve this, one option could be that the problem statement do not mention any protocols? E.g. TRILL, VLAN, and any other protocols should be removed from draft-natern-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement. Protocols discussions could split into separate protocol gap analysis, requirements...? We could do the same for L3 if this is the preferred way by WG. Thanks, Luyuan From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:08 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Luyuan Fang (lufang) Subject: Re: [nvo3] FW: New Version Notification fordraft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-01.txt Hi Luyuan, I review the draft, and it describes the virtualized network with routed function, and the corresponding control plane, data plane and VM migration considerations. draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement describes the virtualized network with switched or routed function, but mainly focus on virtualized switched network. The two draft seem to be complementary for me. Since this is a Problem Statement and Requirements, it would be better if it did not have many contents of solution specific, e.g, BGP, MPLS label. Thanks Lizhong > > -----From "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 > Jun 2012 10:50:53 -0500 ----- > > To: > > <[email protected]> > > CC: > > Pedro Marques <[email protected]>, [email protected], > "Dennis Cai \(dcai\)" <[email protected]> > > Subject: > > [nvo3] FW: New Version Notification fordraft-fang-vpn4dc-problem- > statement-01.txt > > Dear colleagues, > > We have uploaded a new updated version of draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem- > statement-01.txt (on 6/12), by Maria Napierala, Dennis Cai, and myself. > Appreciate your review and comments. > > Thanks, > Luyuan > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:48 PM > To: Luyuan Fang (lufang) > Cc: [email protected]; Dennis Cai (dcai) > Subject: New Version Notification fordraft-fang-vpn4dc-problem- > statement-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Luyuan Fang and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement > Revision: 01 > Title: IP-VPN Data Center Problem Statement and Requirements > Creation date: 2012-06-12 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 18 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fang- > vpn4dc-problem-statement-01.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fang-vpn4dc- > problem-statement > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-01 > Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-fang- > vpn4dc-problem-statement-01 > > Abstract: > Network Service Providers commonly use BGP/MPLS VPNs [RFC 4364] as > the control plane for virtual networks. This technology has proven > to scale to a large number of VPNs and attachment points, and it is > well suited for Data Center connectivity, especially when > supporting all IP applications. > > The Data Center environment presents new challenges and imposes > additional requirements to IP VPN technologies, including multi- > tenancy support, high scalability, VM mobility, security, and > orchestration. This document describes the problems and defines the > new requirements. > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
