> Proposed new text: > > <t> > In the case of IP networks, many routers provide a Virtual > Routing and Forwarding (VRF) service commonly known as "VRF > Lite". The same router operates multiple instances of > forwarding tables, one for each tenant. Each forwarding > table instance is populated separately via routing > protocols, and adjacent routers encapsulate traffic in a way > that identifies the tenant (e.g., using a VLAN tag). Each > VRF Lite instance provides address and traffic isolation. > The VRF Lite instance for each frame is selected based on > that tenant identification. > </t> > > <t> > VRF's are a pure routing construct and in VRF Lite do not > have end-to-end significance in the sense that the data > plane carries a VRF Lite instance selector on an end-to-end > basis. Instead, the VRF Lite instance to be used is > determined at each hop using a combination of incoming > interface and some information in the frame (e.g., local > VLAN tag). Furthermore, the VRF Lite model has typically > assumed that a separate control plane (e.g., based on a > routing protocol) governs the population of each forwarding > table. Thus, the VRF Lite model assumes multiple, logically > independent control plane instances and has no specific tag > within a data frame to identify the VRF Lite instance for > that frame. > </t> > > <t> > MPLS VRFs <xref target="RFC4364"></xref> place the VRF > functionality on the CE and PE devices, using MPLS > encapsulation to preserve tenant separation between the CE > and PE devices. Control plane protocols (e.g., > LDP<xref target="RFC5036"></xref>) are used to set up the > data path between PE and CE. > </t> [Lizhong] One point for RFC4364 I see is: MPLS VPN [RFC4364] requires an unified control plane (MP-BGP), uses MPLS label to identify VN membership, and the MPLS label is locally significant and must be advertised to every remote peer. Then it is a bit difficult to connect two VNs with different control plane. E.g, if you want to connect one VPN with static label configuration to another VPN with MP-BGP signaling seamlessly, you should configure the labels for every Prefix/VPN statically at both sides. If NVO3 allows different control planes to exist, then using the MPLS label to identify membership in [RFC4364] is not a good approach.
Thanks Lizhong > > Does that work? > > Thomas > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
