Hi all, I strongly believe this is an very important question which needs more attentions and discussions. Hence I redefine the subject of the original email so as to avoid this email from being missed.
Best regards, Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > Xuxiaohu > 发送时间: 2012年9月21日 10:00 > 收件人: Aldrin Isaac; Lucy yong > 抄送: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected] > 主题: [nvo3] 答复: draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > Aldrin > > Isaac > > 发送时间: 2012年9月19日 5:24 > > 收件人: Lucy yong > > 抄送: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected] > > 主题: 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. > > If the SH field is just intended for supporting active-active multi-homing on > a per > VPN instance basis, I suggest it'd better for us to seriously evaluate whether > the cost for realizing that goal is worthwhile since that will make the > solution > itself, especially the data plane process, much more complex. In the > multi-tenant cloud data center environment, isn't it good enough in practice > to > support active-standby multi-homing on a per VPN instance basis while > supporting active-active multi-homing on a per physical interface basis? For > instance, a physical server containing two VMs (say VM1 and VM2) which > belong to different VPN instances respectively is dual-homed to two NVEs (say > NVE1 and NVE2), NVE1 is the active NVE for VM1 and the standby NVE for VM2 > while NVE2 is the active NVE for VM2 and the standby NVE for VM1. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
