Kireeti > [...] I would change is the draft name: I prefer "...-nvo3-l2- Kireeti > in-l3-control-plane".
I have the same comment. The document describes control plane for layer 2 overlays (i.e., for transporting MAC/ethernet headers for IP packets). Throughout the document when "network virtualization overlay" is used it should be clarified that it is a layer 2 overlay. Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Kireeti Kompella > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:18 PM > To: Lucy yong > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > Hi Lucy, > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Read this draft. > > > > RFC5512 applies a case where two BGP speakers are in a BGP free core. > Using encapsulation tunnel between two speakers enables one speaker to > send a packet to another speaker as the next-hop. > > > > Using this approach in nvo3 may rise a high scalability concern > because any pair of NVEs in an NVO will need to maintain a state for > the tunnel encapsulation. > > They would have to in any case. The tunnel encap is a couple of bits; > the "tenant id" is also needed. > > > If some NVEs support VXLAN and some support NVGRE, to build mcast > tree for BUM, it has to build two distinct sub-trees for each, which is > more complex. > > > > "This memo specifies that an egress PE must use the sender MAC > > address to determine whether to send a received Broadcast or > > Multicast packet to a given Ethernet Segment. I.e., if the sender > > MAC address is associated with a given Ethernet Segment, the egress > > PE must not send the packet to that Ethernet Segment." > > > > Does it mean using BGP to exchange NVE MAC address that belong to an > Ethernet segment first? How does this impact other evpn features? > > Yes to the first question; not at all (imo) to the second. > > > This needs to be cooked more. > > I think it's pretty well cooked, although I must confess a predilection > for sushi. In effect, these very capable authors saved me the trouble > of writing pretty much the same draft :-) > > The only thing I would change is the draft name: I prefer "...-nvo3-l2- > in-l3-control-plane". Oh, and add a code point for STT :-) > > Kireeti > > > Cheers, > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Aldrin Isaac > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:18 PM > > To: Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri) > > Cc: Thomas Nadeau; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > I'm not sure that the dust has fully settled on the matter. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-07 suggests > > the use of XMPP. The question is whether there is any sound > technical > > reason (versus preferences) why leveraging BGP is problematic. I > > personally haven't heard a convincing argument. > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> May be I missing something here .. but does this suggest running > BGP-EVPN > >> on the NVE > >> that is located in the hypervisor? > >> > >> Dimitri > >> > >> On 9/17/12 8:55 AM, "Thomas Nadeau" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> A number of us just published this draft and wanted to bring > it to the > >>> NVO3 WG's attention. We will be presenting/discussing this draft > at the > >>> interim meeting this week as well, but please discuss here on the > list as > >>> well. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Tom, John, et al > >>> > >>> > >>> A new version of I-D, draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane-00.txt > >>> has been successfully submitted by Thomas D. Nadeau and posted to > the > >>> IETF repository. > >>> > >>> Filename: draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > >>> Revision: 00 > >>> Title: A Control Plane for Network Virtualized Overlays > >>> Creation date: 2012-09-16 > >>> WG ID: Individual Submission > >>> Number of pages: 12 > >>> URL: > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control- > plane-00 > >>> .txt > >>> Status: > >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > >>> Htmlized: > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane-00 > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> The purpose of this document is to describe how Ethernet > Virtual > >>> Private Network (E-VPN) can be used as the control plane for > >>> Network Virtual Overlays. Currently this protocol is defined > to > >>> act as the control plane for Virtual Extensible Local Area > >>> Network (VXLAN), Network Virtualization using Generic Routing > >>> Encapsulation (NVGRE), MPLS or VLANs while maintaining their > >>> existing data plane encapsulations. The intent is that this > >>> protocol will be capable of extensions in the future to handle > >>> additinal data plane encapsulations and functions as needed. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> nvo3 mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> nvo3 mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
