Not just BGP,... networking in general (other than the basic concept of a subnet and a default gateway) is not well understood by most folks in the application/server community. Any advanced network/services/security, etc are going to require participation from people who understand those domains. So if we're only dealing with basic networking I would agree with the argument, but not for anything advanced.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM, NAPIERALA, MARIA H <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > >> > decoupling PE control plane from the forwarding function has many >> advantages but mainly it substantially increases operational scale - >> PE/control element is able to control multiple (1000+) compute nodes >> spread across different servers and other devices. The software >> complexity (e.g., managing policy functions, gathering of operational >> information like stats, events, diagnostics, etc.) is implemented in >> the control plane elements only. These reduce overall cost of a data >> center deployment. >> >> Why do you not think that using EVPN as the control plane to >> signal VXlan and NVGRE is not an example of separated forwarding and >> control plane functions? All of the advantages you listed above are >> available in the solution proposed. > > If you run BGP (PE control plane function) on NVE then there is no separation > of PE's control plane function from PE's forwarding function. As a result PE > controls only the co-located (with it) forwarding plane and, hence, > forwarding plane cannot be spread across multiple and physically distinct > devices/servers. > >> > In addition, having an open protocol between a control plane and a >> forwarding plane of a PE allows sending local forwarding rules to >> forwarding device(s). >> > XMPP is an open standard, light-weight, extendable (can carry various >> data objects), and flexible protocol known to application environment. >> >> Do you think that BGP or any of the other technologies described >> in the draft are not open standards? > > Is BGP known/used in application/server community? > > Maria >> >> > >> > Maria >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:23 PM >> >> To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H; Yakov Rekhter >> >> Cc: [email protected]; Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri); Aldrin Isaac; >> Thomas >> >> Nadeau >> >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane >> >> >> >> >> >> Maria, >> >> >> >> The only issue that is being raised seems to be one of which >> >> control >> >> plane to run, not whether or not we need one. I think everyone >> agrees >> >> on >> >> that. In the way of BGP versus XMPP, perhaps you could elaborate >> why >> >> you >> >> think BGP is a bad choice? >> >> >> >> --Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/20/12 8:41 AM, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Do you think that an NVE that implements only XMPP has no control >> >> plane >> >>>> at all ? >> >>> >> >>> It does not implement the (BGP) control plane of the overlay (e.g., >> >> route >> >>> selection should be done on a controller and not on the NVE), and >> it >> >>> should not directly participate in any other routing protocols. >> >>> >> >>> Maria >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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
