Ok. But from a use case perspective it's inter working. Plus I can't change my use case slides at this point for today's use cases presentation.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012, John E Drake wrote: > Aldrin,**** > > ** ** > > That’s what I thought but Joel seemed adamant. I am happy to use either > term.**** > > ** ** > > Yours irrespectively,**** > > ** ** > > John**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Aldrin Isaac [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', '[email protected]');>] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:57 AM > *To:* John E Drake > *Cc:* Kireeti Kompella; Thomas Nadeau; [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', '[email protected]');>; Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Joel M. > Halpern > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane**** > > ** ** > > Generically when we discuss the need for different forms of NVE to > communicate, wouldnt we describe that as a need to interwork them? > > On Thursday, September 20, 2012, John E Drake wrote:**** > > I had an offline discussion with Joel and he suggests using the term > 'encapsulation selection' rather than 'interworking' > > Yours irrespectively, > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:47 PM > > To: Thomas Nadeau > > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); John E Drake; > > Joel M. Halpern; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2012:11:28 AM, at 11:28 AM, "Balus, Florin Stelian > > (Florin)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> John, > > >> I think more details need to be added here. What happens if one PE > > advertises nvgre encap while the other advertises only vxlan? Do you > > allow asymmetric encapsulations? > > >> What if one NVE supports all 3 which one is chosen, advertised? Just > > a few examples.... > > > > > > That is just not how data centers are built today so that is > > unlikely to happen in the wild. With that in mind, this is an > > interesting corner case that we should handle just in case something is > > misconfigured or someone in the future decides to build such a DC. > > > > As I've said, I like this draft. However, "interworking" is fraught > > with misinterpretations and pitfalls, and perhaps at this stage > > distracts from other more pressing concerns. > > > > Might I suggest the following reworking of Section 4: > > > > 4. Multiple Encapsulations > > > > The Tunnel Encapsulation attribute enables a single control plane > > to oversee a number of different data plane encapsulations. This > > can > > manifest itself in several ways: > > > > a) a data center may use a single common encapsulation for all > > EVIs, but > > different data centers may make independent choices. > > b) within a single data center, a given EVI may use a single > > encapsulation, but different EVIs may choose different > > encapsulations. > > c) a single EVI may use multiple encapsulations, one for each PE-PE > > pair, > > and maybe even use a different encapsulation in each > > direction. > > > > Going from (a) to (c ) increases generality, but also increases > > complexity. > > The initial focus will be on (a) and (b); further details for (c ) > > will be added if > > there is sufficient interest. > > > > In all cases, a PE within a given EVI knows which encapsulations > > other > > PEs in that EVI support, and, when sending unicast traffic, it MUST > > choose > > one of the encapsulations advertised by the egress PE. > > > > For case (c ), an ingress PE that uses shared multicast trees for > > sending > > Broadcast and Multicast traffic must maintain distinct trees for > > each > > different encapsulation type. Further details will be given in a > > future version. > > > > The topic of interworking encapsulations and "gateway" functions > > will also be > > addressed in a future version. > > > > > > > > Kireeti. > > > > > --Tom > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> Florin > > >> > > >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:04 AM, John E Drake <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Joel, > > >>> > > >>> From section 4, the section you referenced in your note below: > > >>> > > >>> "Note that an ingress PE must use the data plane encapsulation > > specified by a given egress PE in the subject MAC Advertisement or Per > > EVI Ethernet AD route when sending a packet to that PE. Further, an > > ingress node that uses shared multicast trees for sending Broadcast and > > Multicast traffic must maintain distinct trees for each different > > encapsulation type." > > >>> > > >>> Aldrin also recast this into English in his reply to Lucy: > > >>> > > >>> "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 t >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
