Hi Aldrin, is BGP the best alternative as the control plane mechanism?
What NVO3 is trying to achieve is to setup and remove tunnels between NVEs when VM/TES are added/moved on the NVEs. So what we really need is "tunnel initiation protocol", right? I believe that a SIP architecture is closer to that than BGP, which is basically a routing protocol. The NVE would be something similar as a SIP UA. When a VM/TES gets added at the NVE the NVE sends an INVITE to the "conference group" (the CUG) with its local members (MAC addresses) to the SIP signalling system. Instead of having voice codes in the INVITE, it contain a list of supported NVO3 "codecs", e.g. VXLAN, NVGRE; STT, MPLS, hopefully some day PR-SCTP etc and the NVEs established tunnels between each other, if not already established. Liveness detection of the path is handled by the transport protocol. Today, you can buy a device containing an advanced SIP UA stack for less than 50$-100$, but a switch/router with an advanced BGP stack is a lot more expensive. Thus it would interesting to visit an SIP architecture to see what it can offer as an NVO3 control plane solution before rushing into a BGP. Patrick On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
