Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3:30 PM > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Data Center Types [was Re: call for adoption: > draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02] > > "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> writes: > > > Thanks for clarifying. The section 4.7 would have to be updated > > accordingly. > > > I think it is important to state the assumptions about the > > properties (e.g., multicast support or, better, its lack of) of the > > underlying network in the problem statement draft. > > Section 4.7 currently says: > > 4.7. Individual Submissions > > Many individual submissions also look to addressing some or all of > the issues addressed in this draft. Examples of such drafts are > VXLAN [I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan], NVGRE > [I-D.sridharan-virtualization-nvgre] and Virtual Machine Mobility in > L3 networks[I-D.wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility]. > > I have purposefully tried not made statements as to how well any > specific solution does or does not meet any requirements. That seems > more appropriate for the gap analysis. > > IMO, text about how best to support tenant multicast, etc. doesn't > belong in the problem statement. Indeed, there was text on how to > support tenant multicast in earlier versions of the document that was > removed in the current version in favor of not duplicating what was in > the framework doc.
This is not about tenant's multicast. It is about whether a DC virtualization solution requires multicast transport in data center core (also referred to as underlying network) to operate. This definitely belongs to a problem statement draft. Thanks! Maria _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
