Eric, Thanks. I'm fine with this proposal. I will remove the limitiations listed in the introduction. The introduction will be revised to be as follows:
Introduction This document provides a framework for Data Center Network Virtualization over L3 tunnels. This framework is intended to aid in standardizing protocols and mechanisms to support large scale network virtualization for data centers. Several IETF drafts relate to the use of overlay networks for data centers. [NVOPS] defines the rationale for using overlay networks in order to build large data center networks. The use of virtualization leads to a very large number of communication domains and end systems to cope with. [OVCPREQ] describes the requirements for a control plane protocol required by overlay border nodes to exchange overlay mappings. This document provides reference models and functional components of data center overlay networks as well as a discussion of technical issues that have to be addressed in the design of standards and mechanisms for large scale data centers. Marc ________________________________ From: Eric Gray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 9:43 PM To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) 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
