Hi Luyuan. > Thanks for the discussion, and sharing the insight...
> I'd like to get us on the same page on when VDP is needed and when > it is not, please help if the following points are not correct? Let me try, based on my understanding of things... > 1) If NVE and TES are in the same physical device - there is no > external wire between them, then no VDP or VDP-like protocol is > needed, regardless L2 or L3 is used. Agreed. This can all be done internal to the device. > 2) If NVE and TES are not in the same physical device, but TES to > NVE using L3 protocols only, there is still no need for VDP or > VDP-alike protocol. Not sure I agree with this. More to the point, in a DC, when will an NVE and TES be separated by a physical network link that is *only* running L3? Even if L3 is being used, it will surely also be running over L2, which I assume (in a DC environment) will be ethernet. Or is this assumption wrong? Thus, VDP can also be used here. Or at least, I'd like to understand why it wouldn't be appropriate and why a different (and new) L3 protocol is needed. To be clear, I'm not wedded to using VDP (or any specific protocol). We need to figure out requirements and then do a gap analysis, so it's premature to be trying to be picking solutions here. But, my assumption is: 1) VDP exists and is already being implemented. We do of course need to have the conversation about whether its implemented widely enough, etc. 2) Assuming VDP already exists, and we can add the needed NVO3 functionality to it (i.e., by defining the needed TLVs), isn't that preferred over inventing a new protocol, no matter how "simple" that new protocol would be? > 3) If NVE and TES are not in the same physical device, TES to NVE > using L2, then VDP or VDP-like protocol plays important role for > discovery and more. Same arguments as above. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
