Why don't Joel and you have a Vulcan mind meld? Yours irrespectively,
John From: Aldrin Isaac [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:15 AM To: John E Drake Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Thomas Nadeau; [email protected]; Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Joel M. Halpern Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane 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(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:57 AM To: John E Drake Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Thomas Nadeau; [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 2012:11:28 AM, at 11:28 AM, "Balus, Florin Stelian > (Florin)" > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
