One ("organizational") comment is that since L3VPN is not only an RFC but it
has been widely deployed for 14 years, it should precede the others mentioned
in the proposed text. It seems to be mentioned as an "afterthought"..
The L3VPN description itself is not precise and not sufficient (and needs to
include a reference to draft-marques-end-system).
Maria
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:57 PM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] VRF text (take 3) in draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-
> problem-statement-02.txt
>
> WG:
>
> To circle back to this thread:
>
> John E Drake <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I would be happy to help. As the text of the two paragraphs has
> > been in flux, would you please send me what you consider to be the
> > latest text?
>
> John did provide text, and it is in
> draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-03.txt, which was posted
> last week. It says:
>
> For IP/MPLS networks, Ethernet Virtual Private Network (E-VPN)
> [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] provides an emulated Ethernet service in which
> each tenant has its own Ethernet network over a common IP or MPLS
> infrastructure and a BGP/MPLS control plane is used to distribute
> the
> tenant MAC addresses and the MPLS labels that identify the tenants
> and tenant MAC addresses. Within the BGP/MPLS control plane a
> thirty
> two bit Ethernet Tag is used to identify the broadcast domains
> (VLANs) associated with a given L2 VLAN service instance and these
> Ethernet tags are mapped to VLAN IDs understood by the tenant at the
> service edges. This means that the limit of 4096 VLANs is
> associated
> with an individual tenant service edge, enabling a much higher level
> of scalability. Interconnectivity between tenants is also allowed
> in
> a controlled fashion.
>
> IP/MPLS networks also provide an IP VPN service (L3 VPN) [RFC4364]
> in
> which each tenant has its own IP network over a common IP or MPLS
> infrastructure and a BGP/MPLS control plane is used to distribute
> the
> tenant IP routes and the MPLS labels that identify the tenants and
> tenant IP routes. As with E-VPNs, interconnectivity between tenants
> is also allowed in a controlled fashion.
>
> VM Mobility [I-D.raggarwa-data-center-mobility] introduces the
> concept of a combined L2/L3 VPN service in order to support the
> mobility of individual Virtual Machines (VMs) between Data Centers
> connected over a common IP or MPLS infrastructure.
>
> There are a number of VPN approaches that provide some if not all of
> the desired semantics of virtual networks. A gap analysis will be
> needed to assess how well existing approaches satisfy the
> requirements.
>
> Does that text work for folk?
>
> 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
