Fine with me. I will add it to the list of updates for the next version. Yours irrespectively,
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:39 AM > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H; Kireeti Kompella; John E Drake; Thomas Nadeau > Cc: [email protected]; Lucy yong > Subject: RE: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > John and Tom, > > Regarding the title, may be more accurate to use something like "E-VPN > Control Plane for Layer 2 Network Virtualized Overlays"? > Thx, > Luyuan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of NAPIERALA, MARIA H > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:35 PM > > To: Kireeti Kompella > > Cc: [email protected]; Lucy yong > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > 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- > 0 > > > >>> 0 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
