Hi all, This is good: the right place to explain the motivation for NVO3 really should be the problem statement draft, since the framework draft essentially aims at framing the terminology and spelling out the concepts.
Now, it can be useful to document the limitations (both the real and the perceived ones) of Ethernet that contributed to motivate people to seek an overlay solution. Reflecting this requires looking at what is most largely deployed ; this is the intent for some people when they say "Ethernet". For some others "Ethernet" is an 802.1-wildcard, including more recent, less used improvements. I think that a reasonable approach would be to avoid "Ethernet" as an ambiguous label, and word motivation about NVO3 that relate to Ethernet, in terms of specific pieces of Ethernet, e.g. 802.1q. -Thomas LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) a écrit : > 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
