My main point was that VDP is not needed in a layer 3 solution since MACs and VLANs are irrelevant to layer 3. Dealing with a protocol which was defined for interoperability with bridging would be unnecessary complication to a layer 3 solution.
Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Unbehagen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:18 PM > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H > Cc: Thomas Narten; Luyuan Fang (lufang); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] TES-NVE attach/detach protocol security (mobility- > issues draft) > > VDP isn't that complicated of a protocol. It was designed to > autoconnect VMs to the proper VLAN and any tenant profile required by > involving communication to a management system which then configures > the proper tenant parameters in the ToR/EoR in a automated way. This > is all transparent to the routing layer as the IP and default gateway > and vlan assignment take care of all that automatically. > > I believe it's already in a few server vendors products already as I > saw prototypes of it a couple years ago. > > -- > Paul Unbehagen > > > On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:20 AM, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Also VDP is between the Hypervisor and NVE. Thus, it may still be > >> needed, even if the service provided to the TES is L3 only. > > > > In a layer 3 solution (whether encapsulation starts at the hypervisor > or on a switch outside of the hypervisor) there is no need to run a > complicated (IEEE) protocol such as VDP. VDP was invented to > interoperate a virtual server with an external layer 2 switch/bridge. > > A layer 3 solution can use much simpler IP-based protocol (developed > in IETF) such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). > > > > Maria > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
