Okay, thanks for clarifying. Sent from my iPhone
>-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:09 AM >To: John E Drake >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay- >problem-statement-02 > > >> Robert, >> >> I expect the CE-PE interface, aka VPN service interface, will be >> implemented between a multiplicity of devices. However, my point was >> a different one. > >And my point is that I do not really see a clear need to run any PE-CE >dynamic routing protocol if we assume that PE is running on the end >host. > >I am also not actually sure if this is in scope of NVO3 to worry about >PE-CE dynamic routing protocol as CEs would most likely be VMs >regardless where the PE is and therefor to simplify the architecture >they may just default to the PE. Such default would be provisioned by >the orchestration system just like the IP address of the VM interface so >IMHO out of scope of this work. > >Thx, >R. > > >> Viz, L3/L2 VPNs do not require BGP as the CE-PE interface. So, >> rather than BGP being a 'non-starter', it is invisible. L3VPNs also >> support OSPF v2 & V3, as well as others I have probably forgotten. >> E-VPNs support STP, LAG, LLDP, etc. There are also Pedro's proposal >> and the IEEE's VDP. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John > > > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
