Ivan, See in line:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Pepelnjak [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:25 AM > To: Linda Dunbar > Cc: 'Somesh Gupta'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Support for multi-homed NVEs > > >> 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; > > > > [Linda] When NIC teaming/MLAG is used, you are assuming that the > > external switch is the two NICs on the server are connected by Layer > > 2, is it correct? If NVE is at the NIC, how to use NIC teaming or > > MLAG? > > Did you actually mean NVE at the NIC, not hypervisor? Why would anyone > do that? > [Linda] You could have NVE per NIC (I am not saying that anyone would). So if you have NVE at hypervisor, then the NIC teaming becoming IP layer NIC teaming. Do you know if any vendor support it? Most NIC teaming I've seen are at the MAC Layer. > >> (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. > > > > [Linda] Then the remote NVE will have two possible (IP) addresses to > > send data back. Who is responsible for balancing the inbound > > traffic? > > Remote NVE, who else? > > Ivan _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
