Following text is more clear to me. The question is: does nvo3 need control plane segregation per a tenant? BGP/MPLS VPN does not support that. Should we explicitly mention it?
Lucy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] VRF text (take 3) in draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02.txt Here is another cut at the VRF text. Thanks to both the on-list and off-list comments/discussion. Hopefully third time's the charm! :-) <t> In the case of IP networks, many routers provide a virtual routing and forwarding capability whereby a single router supports multiple "virtual routers", each using its own forwarding table, i.e., one tied to a specific tenant or VPN. Each forwarding table instance is populated separately via routing protocols, and adjacent routers encapsulate traffic in such a way that the data plane identifies the tenant or VPN that traffic belongs to. The combination of virtual router functionality and data plane separation provides address and traffic isolation for individual tenants. </t> <t> Virtual routing and forwarding is also used on PEs as part of providing BGP/MPLS VPN service <xref target="RFC4364"></xref>. With BGP/MPLS VPNs, MPLS encapsulation is used to provide tenant separation across the transport "underlay" network between PEs. When PEs are connected by MPLS paths, control plane protocols (e.g., LDP <xref target="RFC5036"></xref>) are used to set up the data path between PEs. Whether native MPLS paths or MPLs over GRE encapsulation is used <xref target="RFC4023"></xref>, BGP distributes the necessary labels among PEs for tenant separation. </t> Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
