Please see my email below. This is what I sent as per my outbox. What shows up in the list is a partially edited message. Seems like a gmail for iPhone bug.... :(
On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Aldrin Isaac wrote: > Xiaohu, > > Assume a Virtual LAN is formed by the interconnection of an L2 VN in an > overlay domain with other LAN technology (dot1q, TRILL, PBB, etc) and/or > other L2 VN in other overlay domain. In such a case would you mandate > that the interconnection points must be active/standby? What then if the VN > "bridges" with the VN in the other Overlay domain via multiple sites/DC? > Would you pick one site to be the active interconnection point in order to > avoid data plane loops? What then of optimizing ingress/egress? What of > pooling? > > Best regards. -- aldrin > > On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > Yes, if the active-active multi-homing on a per L2VPN instance basis was > desired in some cases, vendors could offer their proprietary schemes like > Cisco’s VSS to support that capability. In this way, there is no need to > introduce the complexity into the standard, especially on the data plane > perspective, and therefore other NVEs (i.e., PE routers) which are not > within any active-active redundancy group don’t need to afford that > complexity anymore. **** > > ** ** > > As for active-passive multi-homing, I fully agree with you that the > active/passive multi-homing on a per physical interface or trunk interface > basis is not welcomed. Hence we could achieve load-balancing among the > physical interfaces or trunk interfaces which are connected to different > NVEs of the same RG (redundancy group) on the basis of VLANs. For example, > a dual-homed device (DHD) is multi-homed to NVE1 and NVE2 and it is > configured with two VLANs (say VLAN x and y) on its physical NICs in a > bond, NVE1’s corresponding interface is active for VLAN x while NVE2’s > corresponding interface is active for VLAN y…**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > Xiaohu**** > > -**** > > *发件人:* Jon Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] > *发送时间:* 2012年9月22日 17:16 > *收件人:* Xuxiaohu > *抄送:* Aldrin Isaac; Lucy yong; Kireeti Kompella; [email protected] > *主题:* Re: [nvo3] Is the cost of supporting active-active multi-homing on > a per L2VPN instance basis sustainable?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > If we don't do it as part of the standard, vendors will just implement > proprietary versions.**** > > ** ** > > active/passive anything is not welcomed in the datacenter anymore **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
