On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:05, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/11/12 10:28 AM, "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email protected]> wrote: <snipped> >> 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. > > I don't agree with that one. But first, let's clarify that I'm assuming > that there is an additional component in between the TES and the NVE > (which I believe is called End Device in the framework doc). Here is a > picture to illustrate: > > Hypervisor Access Router/Switch > +-------------------+ +-----+-------+ > | +---+ +-------+ | | | | > | |TES|---| | | VLAN | | | > | +---+ |Virtual|---------+ NVE | +--- Underlying > | +---+ |Switch | | Trunk | | | Network > | |TES|---| | | | | | > | +---+ +-------+ | | | | > +-------------------+ +-----+-------+ > THANK YOU! Terminology (e.g., TES) is only useful if it's used consistently and correctly. > I'm assuming VDP happens between trusted devices, so in this picture the > hypervisor virtual switch is a trusted End Device. It would run the > VDP-like protocol. In this case, there is still a need to inform the NVE > of the need to participate in a given L3 VN and possibly to be informed of > the TES IP addresses within that VN. Agreed with both parts: virtual switch would run VDP, and the need for it. Kireeti _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
