Precisely. Yours irrespectively,
John > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Aldrin Isaac > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:31 PM > To: Patrick Frejborg > Cc: Thomas Nadeau; [email protected]; Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri) > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > In the context of L2 and L3 VPNs BGP is engineered to be a pub-sub > vector distribution protocol. EVPN, IPVPN, BGP-VPLS, etc are > distributed network applications that use/prefer BGP to distribute > application-specific information to peers for the purpose of creating > overlay virtual networks. BGP isn't really what you pay for (you might > even get it for free), it's the application that you pay for. This is > true whether you buy a centralized SDN controller running a network > application or you choose a distributed solution using BGP, or > applications that might use SIP. I think people are getting too hung > up on the simpler parts of the problem. > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > > > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
