Eric, > > Maria, > > Thanks for the explanation. > > Since there are already existing solutions for virtualized data > centers, I think it is only too > obvious that we're conceding that a "one-size fits all" solution is > pretty much out of the question. > > So, it seems possible (at least) that a solution built around > EVPN may be applicable to at > least a subset of use cases. > > I am curious, however, about the suggestion that we need "to > address *non-IP* traffic" > in the context of an IETF working group. Why is that?
This is a good question. As I stated, if you assume that all traffic in a DC is IP then layer 3 overlay solution seems to be obvious one to me. Maria > -- > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: NAPIERALA, MARIA H [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:02 AM > To: Eric Gray; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > Importance: High > > Eric, > > (BTW, there was a follow up to this e-mail which you might want to > check out also). > > A data center where all traffic (intra- and inter-subnet) is *IP* then > a routing solution such as L3VPN is the most optimal for such data > center. I would think everybody would agree with this assertion. > > The question is how to address *non-IP* traffic, in those DCs that care > about such traffic. The best way to answer that question would be to > measure such traffic. If a data center has a lot of *non-IP* traffic > then it would make sense to use EVPN for intra-subnet forwarding. If > non-IP traffic is localized to a small subset of VLANs perhaps it makes > more sense to have a solution where EVPN is only used when necessary, > rather than to design the entire solution around EVPN. > > Maria > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Gray [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:49 PM > > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > Maria, > > > > Given that we already have routing, I am not clear on what else > it is > > that you're saying needs to be done to produce an "overall solution." > > If we use EVPN as one way to address traffic "bridged in the same > > VLAN" and we use routing to handle traffic that "is inter-VLAN, i.e., > > packets [that] are routed" do we have less than an overall solution? > > > > I am personally convinced that this is just one over-all > solution, of > > possibly many > > - but it certainly seems like a good candidate to consider for work > > here in the IETF. > > > > -- > > Eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of NAPIERALA, MARIA H > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:09 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > I think we should try to clarify what problems or what type of data > > centers specific solutions are addressing. > > Specifically, EVPN can only address traffic bridged in the same VLAN. > > In data centers where most traffic is inter-VLAN, i.e., packets are > > routed, the EVPN doesn't achieve much as an overall solution. > > I tried to make this point on the webex during the nvo3 interim > > session when draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane was discussed but I > > am not sure if my message went through. > > > > Maria > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > > > Of Thomas Nadeau > > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:55 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane > > > > > > > > > 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
