This is definitely an interesting can of worms ;) While I don't think we should go down the path of IP-A/IP-B networks similar to some other DC technology, we will face the reality of some NVE elements (hypervisor soft switches) not being underlay IP routers.
We could either: (A) ignore the issue and expect the network designer to solve it using any one of the existing NIC teaming/MLAG kludges while retaining a single encapsulation IP address per NVE; (B) provide support for multiple encapsulation addresses per NVE so a multi-homed NVE could have one IP address per physical interface and send and receive nvo3-encapsulated frames using more than one address. Option (A) is the easy way out similar to existing MPLS/VPN behavior and would fit well with existing DC deployments. It would also retain all the server-to-ToR multihoming complexity. Option (B) would reduce the complexity of the underlay DC network (which would become a simple L3 network with single-homed IP addresses), but we'd have to deal with a bunch of additional problems (peer IP address liveliness check). Just speculating ... Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Somesh Gupta > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [nvo3] Support for multi-homed NVEs > > I did not see any mention of multi-homed NVEs in draft-lasserre-nvo3- > framework-03.txt. NVEs are connected together by an L3 network - does that > mean only one? > Can it be multi-homes to two L3 networks? > > Somesh > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
