Hi Aldrin, I understand what is proposed.
I think supporting a multi data plane encapsulation in a mp2mp situation is much more complex than p2p situation. We can use a gateway (or say convertor) to achieve data plane interworking, which will be similar to p2p situation. This approach still allows working under one control plane. We can discuss more on this in the meeting. Regarding your second paragraph, I agree. To support multi-homing and prevent loop, it needs a split-horizon ID no matter which data plane to use. Thanks, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: Aldrin Isaac [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:24 PM To: Lucy yong Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane The imported E-VPN route will determine what the next hop entry in the EVI will look like -- whether it will have encapsulation A or encapsulation B. That is determined by the sender of the E-VPN route. This is like having a PPP interface and an Ethernet interface connected to the same VRF. Ideally the other encapsulations would have included support for multi-homing by including an additional field for a split-horizon ID for use by control-planes and NVE that support multi-homing. Maybe it's not too late to add an SH field to these encapsulations since it seems that there is some unused bits in nvGRE (maybe not enough) and in VXLAN -- just a thought. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kreeti, > > Regarding interworking capability, Is "a given EVI can support multiple data > plane encapsulation" equivalent to say "individual NVEs need to support > multiple encapsulation schemas"? If one NVE only supports VXLAN and another > NVE only supports MPLS-in-GRE, two will not able to work in a same EVI, is > that right? Will this give more benefit than having one encapsulation in an > EVI or make more complex? > > Regards, > Lucy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:18 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
