I have personally seen numerous DC's deployed over the last year that have used SPB to create an end to end Ethernet underlay to solve many of the problems that nvo3 is also trying to fix with overlays. VM's are moving across cities transparently to the IP layer above in both single and multi-tenant environments.
Obviously some customers may want an overlay for other reasons, but Janos' points are correct. Marc, perhaps if the text on Ethernet capabilities was updated to reflect what is possible today, it will clear up the confusion. -- Paul Unbehagen Sent from my iPad On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:33 PM, AshwoodsmithPeter <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed, I think that stating that those limitiations apply to all “Existing > virtual network models used for data center networks” is perhaps a bit > sweeping and could use a bit of qualification otherwise its untrue. > > Peter > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric > Gray > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:43 PM > To: Marc Lasserre > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02 > > Marc, > > Let's not try to make something hard out of this. > > Janos suggested that certain statements made in your draft are not > particularly > true (or applicable) if existing standard capabilties have been deployed. > > You responded (paraphrasing) that - while this is true - there are > networks where > these capabilities are not part of the layer-2 deployment, and there are > customers > who would prefer a layer-3 solution. > > So far, I have no gripe with this. > > However, Joel points out that the current wording makes it appear that > the driving > justification for doing this work in layr-3 is that existing layer-2 > standards/solutions > won't work. He further points out that this is not consistent with your own > admission > that there are well-known layer-2 standards/solutions that address the > limitations you > list. > > Apparently, it was not your intent to make it sound this way. > > Without going line by line through the introduction, the general changes > required > to bring what you are saying back into alignment with what we all apparently > agree > is the case are relatively obvious and simple. > > 1) The simplest change would be to remove the statements about layer-2 > limitations > as Janos has suggested. I think we all understand why perhaps this is > not the > way you want to go. Fine. > 2) If you are going to list the limitations that you now list, you need to > make it clear > these are "perceived" limitations based on currently deployed layer-2 > networking > technology, in some networks. > 3) If one of the key reasons why we want to define a layer-3 solution is that > there is > a demand from customers for a layer-3 solution, simply say that rather > than giving > inaccurate second-hand information about "perceived" reasons for this > preference > based on out-of-date layer-2 deployments. > > Does this help? > > -- > Eric > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
