To me it seems rather clear that going for _single_ NVO3 solution to
accommodate partial pieces of various (apparently very different)
requirements to only enforce that we all must be on the same single bus
is rather a poor choice.
Best,
R.
There are clear data center architectures, and data center deployments,
where optimal inter-subnet routing is important. Equally clearly, there
are cases where bouncing everything off the gateway is sufficient. And
cases in between.
It seems to me that the framework and problem statement efforts should
not mandate that one particular point on that spectrum is a MUST for all
NVO3 solutions.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/2/2012 10:52 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Joel,
So I was urging that we not mandate optimal inter-subnet routing as part
of the NVO3 requirements.
If my customers who happen to try my standards based offering to run
their 3-tier applications will perform their application level
measurements (and trust me - all of them do it these days) and find that
my competition offers more optimal data plane results via non standard
solution - I will likely loose those customers.
While in L2 VNs going via some randomly placed gateway may be ok in L3
services I am afraid the bar is already much higher today. That actually
is one good reason to decouple NVO3 requirements for L2 and L3 VN
services and address them separately.
Thx,
R.
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
