Lucy, 

I'm not sure we want to go down the complicated road of segmented transport 
tunnels.  That seems to be a lot more work for the control plane and network 
designers.  I think that might also head us in the opposite direction of the 
pooling principle :).  Isn't it less expensive if the NVE supports different 
encaps versus adding complexity into the CP?

Best regards -- aldrin



On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Lucy yong wrote:

> John,
> 
> First of all, I mean to say that the proposed solution is not proper in a 
> mp2mp solution in the reply to Tom. This is my mistake.
> 
> If one egress PE supports NVGRE, one support VXLAN, and one support MPLS-GRE, 
> then five ingress PEs that need to have tunnels to all three egress PEs will 
> all need to support 3 encapsulation. 
> 
> Using a gateway interwork with different data plane is better on this.
> 
> Lucy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John E Drake [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:05 AM
> To: Lucy yong; Thomas Nadeau
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> 
> Lucy,
> 
> What exactly do you mean by 'mp2mp' and why do you think it is needed in this 
> context? 
> 
> Yours irrespectively,
> 
> John
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Lucy yong
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:56 AM
>> To: Thomas Nadeau
>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> I am not auguring if NVO3 should support different data encapsulations.
>> I question that the proposed solution is proper in a mp2mp situation.
>> Using a gateway for this case is much simpler, which can still be done
>> in a single control plane.
>> 
>> However, in NVO3, encapsulation is done at NVE not end system, right? I
>> don't know the intention of your second sentence.
>> 
>> Lucy
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:10 PM
>> To: Lucy yong
>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
>> 
>> 
>>      There is definitely a requirement to do different encapsulations
>> simultaneously. There is even support coming from NIC vendors to
>> support multiple VMs with different encapsulations at the same time.
>> 
>>      --Tom
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2012:1:18 PM, at 1:18 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
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to