Good

Yours irrespectively,

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Yakov Rekhter
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: Lucy yong
> Cc: [email protected]; Linda Dunbar
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> 
> Lucy,
> 
> > Hi Yakov,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Yakov Rekhter
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:32 AM
> > > To: Lucy yong
> > > Cc: [email protected]; Linda Dunbar
> > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > >
> > > Lucy,
> > >
> > > > Hi Linda and Yakov,
> > > >
> > > > Beside previous comment. I also want to add other two comments or
> > > > say
> > > two s=
> > > > uggestions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1)      Suggest to add a new section (section 3.5)  to address
> policy
> > > impact.
> > > > It can describe that although a virtual overlay network can be
> > > implemented
> > > > with a full mesh topology in general, it is possible to implement
> > > with
> > > > different topologies by using policy. This is very often cases in
> > > IP/MPLS
> > > > L3VPN, which allows tenant implementing firewall, security
> > > > control,
> > > gateway
> > > > function, and etc in certain places. However, the policy
> > > > implemented
> > > topology
> > > > may cause the performance change significantly when moving VMs.
> > > > For
> > > example,
> > > > when an NVO is implemented with hub-spoke topology, moving a VM
> > > > from
> > > a
> > > > Hub NVE place to a spoke NVE place will conduct  the
> communication
> > > from a
> > > > VM in other spoke NVE places to go through the hub-NVE first,
> > > > which
> > > may cause
> > > > observable traffic delay. This performance change is caused by
> the
> > > policy,
> > > which is different from the performance change due to physical
> > > location.=
> > >
> > > What you described in the above seems like changing VM from being a
> > > hub to being a spoke. This has nothing to do with VM mobility, as
> > > changing VM from being a hub to being a spoke could be accomplished
> > > without moving VM at all, but by just changing import/export RTs of
> > > the EVI/VRF associated with the VM.
> > [Lucy] Let me make it clear. What I want to say is about moving a VM
> > at a hub site to a spoke site. This is not about if an operator want
> > to change a hub site into a spoke site.
> 
> If a particular VM suppose to act as a spoke, then one can *not* move
> this VM from an EVI/VRF provisioned as a spoke to an EVI/VRF
> provisioned as a hub (as doing this would violate policies that control
> inter-VM connectivity).
> 
> To cover this I would propose to add the following to the draft
> (perhaps, as you suggested, in a separate section):
> 
>    Moving VM from one L2 physical domain to another means
>    (among other things) that the NVE in the new domain that
>    provides connectivity between this VM and VMs in other L2
>    physical domains must be able to implement the policies
>    that control connectivity between this VM and VMs in other
>    L2 physical domains. In other words, the policies that
>    control connectivity between a given VM and its peers
>    MUST NOT change as the VM moves from one L2 physical domain
>    to another. All of the above is irrespective of whether
>    the L2 physical domains are trivial or not.
> 
> Yakov.
> 
> > > >   In addition, another VM on the same spoke NVE now can directly
> > > > talk
> > > to the
> > > > moved VM without going through hub-NVE, which may impact the
> > > > initial
> > > design
> > > > goal.  I think this is fairly important to describe in this
> > > > document,
> > > so
> > > > DC operator has to pay attention on these factors when moving
> VMs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Two spokes should not allow to talk to each other directly,
> > > irrespective of the location of these two spokes. And if they do,
> > > then there is an implementation bug. As a side comment, in the
> > > context of "usual" 2547 VPN  that means that even if two spokes are
> > > connected to the same PE, they can not talk to each other directly
> > > (via this PE).
> > [Lucy] good point. Setting a policy at spoke site can achieve that.
> > However,
> in L3VPN case, SP VPN may not able to limit hosts at CE site to
> communicate eac h other in the CE network (without touch VPN at all).
> Thus, the main purpose of  hub-spoke implementation is to prohibit the
> communication between two spoke si tes directly in my opinion.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2)      The doc. should mention that when a VM moves from one
> server
> > > to ano=
> > > > ther server, if the destination virtual network is implemented
> > > > with
> > > differe=
> > > > nt address family, VM IP address has to change to match the
> > > destination net=
> > > > work supported    address family. For example, a VM with IPv4
> address
> > > is mo=
> > > > ved to an virtual network that supports IPv6 only. (I know this
> is
> > > obvious,=
> > > >  but it should be the rule)
> > >
> > > The scope of the draft is on seamless mobility, and seamless
> > > mobility, by definition, means that VM's IP address does not
> change.
> > > From section 2:
> > >
> > >                                         ....  seamless mobility is
> > >    defined as the ability to move a VM from one server in the data
> > >    center to another server in the same or different data center,
> while
> > >    retaining the IP and MAC address of the VM.
> > >
> > > Changing VM's IP address family would certainly imply changing VM's
> > > IP address, and thus is outside the scope of the draft.
> > [Lucy] I see. I did not read this carefully. Agree that is outside
> the
> > scope
> of the draft.
> >
> > Lucy
> > >
> > > > It is good we have one document to capture all VM mobility issues
> > > that DC o=
> > > > perators need to know.
> > >
> > > Yakov.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Lucy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Linda Dunbar
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:13 PM
> > > > To: Linda Dunbar; Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > > >
> > > > One more point, if destination VMs don't expect VIDs, then the
> NVE
> > > can remo=
> > > > ve the VID encoded in the data frame after the decapsulation,
> > > regardless wh=
> > > > ere NVE is. Of course, if NVE is many hops away from the VMs,
> > > > there
> > > is high=
> > > > er chance that the local VID is needed in the data frame after
> the
> > > decapsul=
> > > > ation.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > >
> > > > From: Linda Dunbar
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:10 PM
> > > > To: Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > > >
> > > > Lucy,
> > > >
> > > > If the destination VMs also expect VIDs in the data frame, the
> > > > target
> > > NVE (=
> > > > or egress NVE) should not take away the VID embedded in the data
> > > frames, re=
> > > > gardless where NVE is.
> > > >
> > > > The point is that the VIDs used by those VMs are globally
> significant.
> > > >
> > > > LInda
> > > >
> > > > From: Lucy yong
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:57 PM
> > > > To: Linda Dunbar; Yakov Rekhter
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > > >
> > > > Linda,
> > > >
> > > > Regardless the frame from VM having VID or not, the frame is
> > > encapsulated a=
> > > > t NVE and sent to a peer NVE.  If peer NVE is also on a server,
> it
> > > can pass=
> > > >  the frame to VM directly based on the destination address.
> > > > Therefore,
> > > the =
> > > > VID is not used at all.
> > > >
> > > > I agree if the peer NVE is on ToR, it will send the frame to a
> > > > VLAN
> > > identif=
> > > > ied by VID in order to reach that VM. Thus, the rules are caused
> > > > by
> > > physica=
> > > > l network configuration.  Is that right?
> > > >
> > > > That is my point. The draft should clarify this. Do you agree?
> > > >
> > > > Lucy
> > > >
> > > > From: Linda Dunbar
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:48 PM
> > > > To: Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > > >
> > > > Lucy,
> > > >
> > > > For VMs instantiated with applications which need to sit in
> > > > multiple
> > > subnet=
> > > > s, the VIDs are encoded in the data frames sent out from the VMs.
> > > > For
> > > this =
> > > > scenario, even if the NVE is on server, VIDs are there between
> VMs
> > > and Virt=
> > > > ual Switch.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > >
> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > > > Behalf
> > > Of Luc=
> > > > y yong
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:17 PM
> > > > To: Yakov Rekhter
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: [nvo3] comment on rekhter-vm-mobility
> > > >
> > > > Hi Yakov,
> > > >
> > > > It is carefully written about L2-based CUG.
> > > >
> > > > The scenarios that the draft describe are about that VMs in a CUG
> > > > are
> > > expos=
> > > > ed to a physical network, as it is referred to "L2 physical
> domain"
> > > in the =
> > > > doc.  To use NVO3 framework terms, it is the case when NVE on TOR
> > > > and
> > > VM on=
> > > >  servers. The connection between Servers and TOR is via a
> physical
> > > wire whe=
> > > > re VLAN is implemented. The draft describes the necessary rules
> of
> > > usage of=
> > > >  VLAN-IDs to enable VM move in a L2-based CUG. I agree these
> rules.
> > > >
> > > > Comment I want to give is that, one motivation to do NVO for DC
> is
> > > > to
> > > creat=
> > > > e a true virtual network  environment for the VMs in a closed
> user
> > > group to=
> > > >  communicate and to decouple the virtual environment from the
> > > physical DC n=
> > > > etworks which has a lot of constrain to support VM mobility.  You
> > > draft has=
> > > >  specified these necessary constrains.  However, if we just want
> > > > to
> > > impleme=
> > > > nt in this way, we do not achieve our objective here: to create a
> > > true virt=
> > > > ual network environment that is decoupled from a physical
> network.
> > > >
> > > > It is clear that, in nvo3, we want to support that NVE is on
> Server.
> > > In thi=
> > > > s case, it will create a true virtual networking for VM
> > > communications. The=
> > > >  traffic from a VM will not directly expose on a wire and DC
> > > > switches
> > > any m=
> > > > ore. Thus, VM mobility does not face these VLAN ID issues and no
> > > > need
> > > such =
> > > > constrains. It will be good for the draft to point out or clarify
> > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming an  NVE is on server,  a VM can be moved from one server
> > > > to
> > > anothe=
> > > > r if NVEs on both servers are members of the same VN or if NVEs
> on
> > > the both=
> > > >  servers are member of different VNs but two VNs have
> interconnection.
> > > I th=
> > > > ink that the draft should mention this case and distinct it from
> > > > when
> > > NVE i=
> > > > s on ToRs.
> > > >
> > > > In section 3.3, the scenarios should cover both when another
> > > > server
> > > is not =
> > > > in the L2 physical domain or in the different  L2 physical domain
> > > that are =
> > > > connected to this L2 physical domain.  IMO, two have different.
> > > > The
> > > first c=
> > > > ase need to let NVE on server to join the L3 physical domain
> first.
> > > >
> > > > I think, this draft motivates us more to have NVE on server when
> > > > DC
> > > operato=
> > > r want to a lot of vm mobility for resource and performance
> > > optimization.  =
> > > > Without NVE on server, you have these constrains (or rules) to
> > > > deal
> > > with. I=
> > > > ETF is to work out the solutions that allow these configuration
> > > > and
> > > device =
> > > > still can interwork under different configurations. It is up to
> DC
> > > operator=
> > > >  to chose which configuration is proper for their business.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, regardless of NVE on server or on ToR, the issue in
> > > > section
> > > 3.4 we=
> > > >  need to solve in nvo3 solution.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Lucy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44816464dfweml505mbx_
> > > > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > >
> > > > <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
> > > xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
> > > > osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-
> > > com:office:word" =
> > > > xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
> > > xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-m=
> > > > icrosoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-
> > > com:office=
> > > > :access" xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882"
> > > xmlns:s=3D"=
> > > > uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882"
> > > > xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-
> > > microsof=
> > > > t-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-
> > > microsoft-co=
> > > > m:office:publisher" xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-
> > > com:office:spreadshee=
> > > > t" xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-
> com:office:component:spreadsheet"
> > > xmlns=
> > > > :odc=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc"
> > > xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-micro=
> > > > soft-com:office:activation"
> > > > xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
> > > html40" =
> > > > xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";
> > > xmlns:rtc=3D"http://m=
> > > > icrosoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:"
> > > xmlns:Repl=3D"http://=
> > > > schemas.microsoft.com/repl/"
> > > xmlns:mt=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/share=
> > > point/soap/meetings/"
> > > xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel=
> > > > /2003/xml" xmlns:ppda=3D"http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd";
> > > xmlns:ois=
> > > > =3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/";
> > > xmlns:dir=3D"http://=
> > > > schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/"
> > > xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3=
> > > > .org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
> > > xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint=
> > > > /dsp" xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc";
> > > xmlns:xsd=3D"http=
> > > > ://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> > > xmlns:sub=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sha=
> > > > repoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/"
> > > xmlns:ec=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#"=
> > > >  xmlns:sp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/";
> > > xmlns:sps=3D"http://=
> > > > schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/"
> > > xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001=
> > > > /XMLSchema-instance"
> > > xmlns:udcs=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/so=
> > > > ap" xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile";
> > > xmlns:udc=
> > > > p2p=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart";
> > > xmlns:wf=3D"http:/=
> > > > /schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/"
> > > xmlns:dsss=3D"http://sche=
> > > > mas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup"
> > > xmlns:dssi=3D"http://schemas.mi=
> > > > crosoft.com/office/2006/digsig"
> > > xmlns:mdssi=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformat=
> > > > s.org/package/2006/digital-signature"
> > > xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlf=
> > > > ormats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
> > > xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.c=
> > > > om/office/2004/12/omml"
> > > xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/pa=
> > > > ckage/2006/relationships"
> > > xmlns:spwp=3D"http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/web=
> > > > partpages"
> > > xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/20=
> > > > 06/types"
> > > xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/200=
> > > > 6/messages"
> > > xmlns:pptsl=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/Sli=
> > > > deLibrary/"
> > > xmlns:spsl=3D"http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortal=
> > > > Server/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-
> com:"
> > > xmlns:=
> > > > st=3D"&#1;" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
> > > > <head>
> > > > <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html;
> > > > charset=3Dus-
> > > ascii"=
> > > > >
> > > > <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
> > > medium)">
> > > > <style><!--
> > > > /* Font Definitions */
> > > > @font-face
> > > >         {font-family:SimSun;
> > > >         panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
> > > > @font-face
> > > >         {font-family:"Cambria Math";
> > > >         panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
> > > > @font-face
> > > >         {font-family:Calibri;
> > > >         panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> > > > @font-face
> > > >         {font-family:Tahoma;
> > > >         panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
> > > > @font-face
> > > >         {font-family:"\@SimSun";
> > > >         panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
> > > > /* Style Definitions */
> > > > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> > > >         {margin:0in;
> > > >         margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> > > >         font-size:11.0pt;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
> > > > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> > > >         {mso-style-priority:99;
> > > >         color:blue;
> > > >         text-decoration:underline;}
> > > > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> > > >         {mso-style-priority:99;
> > > >         color:purple;
> > > >         text-decoration:underline;}
> > > > p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
> > > >         {mso-style-priority:34;
> > > >         margin-top:0in;
> > > >         margin-right:0in;
> > > >         margin-bottom:0in;
> > > >         margin-left:.5in;
> > > >         margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> > > >         font-size:11.0pt;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
> > > > span.EmailStyle17
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:windowtext;}
> > > > span.EmailStyle18
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:#1F497D;}
> > > > span.EmailStyle19
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:#1F497D;}
> > > > span.EmailStyle20
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:#1F497D;}
> > > > span.EmailStyle21
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:#1F497D;}
> > > > span.EmailStyle22
> > > >         {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
> > > >         font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> > > >         color:#1F497D;}
> > > > .MsoChpDefault
> > > >         {mso-style-type:export-only;
> > > >         font-size:10.0pt;}
> > > > @page WordSection1
> > > >         {size:8.5in 11.0in;
> > > >         margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
> > > > div.WordSection1
> > > >         {page:WordSection1;}
> > > > /* List Definitions */
> > > > @list l0
> > > >         {mso-list-id:844978255;
> > > >         mso-list-type:hybrid;
> > > >         mso-list-template-ids:1301811554 67698705 67698713 67698715
> > > 67698703 67
> > > 698=
> > > > 713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1
> > > >         {mso-level-text:"%1\)";
> > > >         mso-level-tab-stop:none;
> > > >         mso-level-number-position:left;
> > > >         text-indent:-.25in;}
> > > > @list l1
> > > >         {mso-list-id:1404599941;
> > > >         mso-list-type:hybrid;
> > > >         mso-list-template-ids:1484681866 67698705 67698713 67698715
> > > 67698703 67
> > > 698=
> > > > 713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l1:level1
> > > >         {mso-level-text:"%1\)";
> > > >         mso-level-tab-stop:none;
> > > >         mso-level-number-position:left;
> > > >         text-indent:-.25in;}
> > > > @list l2
> > > >         {mso-list-id:1429733409;
> > > >         mso-list-type:hybrid;
> > > >         mso-list-template-ids:-509829154 67698705 67698713 67698715
> > > 67698703 67
> > > 698=
> > > > 713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l2:level1
> > > >         {mso-level-text:"%1\)";
> > > >         mso-level-tab-stop:none;
> > > >         mso-level-number-position:left;
> > > >         text-indent:-.25in;}
> > > > ol
> > > >         {margin-bottom:0in;}
> > > > ul
> > > >         {margin-bottom:0in;}
> > > > --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> > > > <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
> > > > </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout
> > > > v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
> > > > </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
> > > > </head>
> > > > <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"> <div
> > > > class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Hi Linda and
> > > Yakov,<o:=
> > > > p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Beside
> > > > previous
> > > commen=
> > > > t. I also want to add other two comments or say two
> > > suggestions.<o:p></o:p>=
> > > > </span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoListParagraph"
> > > > style=3D"text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1
> > > level=
> > > > 1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><span
> > > style=3D"m=
> > > > so-list:Ignore">1)<span style=3D"font:7.0pt &quot;Times New
> > > Roman&quot;">&n=
> > > > bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> > > > </span></span></span><![endif]><span
> > > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Suggest
> > > to add=
> > > >  a new section (section 3.5) &nbsp;to address policy impact. It
> > > > can
> > > describ=
> > > > e that although a virtual overlay network can be implemented
> > > &nbsp;with a f=
> > > > ull mesh topology in general, it is possible  to implement with
> > > > different topologies by using policy. This is very
> > > often=
> > > >  cases in IP/MPLS L3VPN, which allows tenant implementing
> > > > firewall,
> > > securit=
> > > > y control, gateway function, and etc in certain places. However,
> > > > the
> > > policy=
> > > >  implemented topology may cause
> > > >  the performance change significantly when moving VMs. For
> > > > example,
> > > when an=
> > > >  NVO is implemented with hub-spoke topology, moving a VM from a
> > > > Hub
> > > NVE pla=
> > > > ce to a spoke NVE place will conduct &nbsp;the communication from
> > > > a
> > > VM in o=
> > > > ther spoke NVE places to go through the  hub-NVE first, which may
> > > > cause observable traffic delay. This
> > > performance =
> > > > change is caused by the policy, which is different from the
> > > performance cha=
> > > > nge due to physical location. &nbsp;In addition, another VM on
> the
> > > same spo=
> > > > ke NVE now can directly talk to the moved  VM without going
> > > > through hub-NVE, which may impact the initial
> > > design goal=
> > > > .&nbsp; I think this is fairly important to describe in this
> > > > document,
> > > so D=
> > > > C operator has to pay attention on these factors when moving
> > > VMs.<o:p></o:p=
> > > > ></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoListParagraph"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:=
> > > > p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoListParagraph"
> > > > style=3D"text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1
> > > level=
> > > > 1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><span
> > > style=3D"m=
> > > > so-list:Ignore">2)<span style=3D"font:7.0pt &quot;Times New
> > > Roman&quot;">&n=
> > > > bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> > > > </span></span></span><![endif]><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">The
> doc.
> > > shoul=
> > > > d mention that when a VM moves from one server to another server,
> > > > if
> > > the de=
> > > > stination virtual network is implemented with different address
> > > family, VM =
> > > > IP address has to change to match
> > > >  the destination network supported &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;address
> family.
> > > For ex=
> > > > ample, a VM with IPv4 address is moved to an virtual network that
> > > supports =
> > > > IPv6 only. (I know this is obvious, but it should be the
> > > rule)<o:p></o:p></=
> > > > span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoListParagraph"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:=
> > > > p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">It is good
> we
> > > have one=
> > > >  document to capture all VM mobility issues that DC operators
> need
> > > > to
> > > know.=
> > > > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></s=
> > > > pan></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Lucy<o:p></o:p></span>=
> > > > </p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <div>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> > > > 0in 0in">
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-
> > > family:&quot=
> > > > ;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span
> > > style=3D"font-s=
> > > > ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-
> serif&quot;">
> > > Linda Du=
> > > > nbar
> > > > <br>
> > > > <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:13 PM<br> <b>To:</b>
> > > > Linda Dunbar; Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter<br> <b>Cc:</b>
> > > > [email protected]<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: comment on rekhter-vm-
> > > mobility<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">One more
> > > > point,
> > > if des=
> > > > tination VMs don&#8217;t expect VIDs, then the NVE can remove the
> > > > VID
> > > encod=
> > > > ed in the data frame after the decapsulation, regardless where
> NVE is.
> > > Of c=
> > > > ourse, if NVE is many hops away from the VMs,  there is higher
> > > > chance that the local VID is needed in the data
> > > frame afte=
> > > > r the decapsulation.
> > > > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Linda<o:p></o:p></span=
> > > > ></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue
> 1.5pt;padding:0in
> > > 0in 0in =
> > > > 4.0pt">
> > > > <div>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> > > > 0in 0in">
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-
> > > family:&quot=
> > > > ;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span
> > > style=3D"font-s=
> > > > ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-
> serif&quot;">
> > > Linda Du=
> > > > nbar
> > > > <br>
> > > > <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:10 PM<br> <b>To:</b>
> > > > Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br>
> > > > <b>Subject:</b> RE: comment on rekhter-vm-
> > > mobility<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > </div>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Lucy,
> > > <o:p></o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">If the
> > > destination VMs=
> > > >  also expect VIDs in the data frame, the target NVE (or egress
> > > > NVE)
> > > should =
> > > > not take away the VID embedded in the data frames, regardless
> > > > where
> > > NVE is.
> > > > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">The point is
> > > that the =
> > > > VIDs used by those VMs are globally significant.
> > > > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">LInda<o:p></o:p></span=
> > > > ></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue
> 1.5pt;padding:0in
> > > 0in 0in =
> > > > 4.0pt">
> > > > <div>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> > > > 0in 0in">
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-
> > > family:&quot=
> > > > ;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span
> > > style=3D"font-s=
> > > > ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-
> serif&quot;">
> > > Lucy yon=
> > > > g
> > > > <br>
> > > > <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:57 PM<br> <b>To:</b>
> > > > Linda Dunbar; Yakov Rekhter<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br>
> > > > <b>Subject:</b> RE: comment on rekhter-vm-
> > > mobility<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Linda,<o:p></o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Regardless
> > > > the
> > > frame f=
> > > > rom VM having VID or not, the frame is encapsulated at NVE and
> > > > sent
> > > to a pe=
> > > > er NVE. &nbsp;If peer NVE is also on a server, it can pass the
> > > > frame
> > > to VM =
> > > > directly based on the destination address.
> > > >  Therefore, the VID is not used at all. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">I agree if
> > > > the
> > > peer NV=
> > > > E is on ToR, it will send the frame to a VLAN identified by VID
> in
> > > order to=
> > > >  reach that VM. Thus, the rules are caused by physical network
> > > configuratio=
> > > > n. &nbsp;Is that right?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">That is my
> point.
> > > The =
> > > > draft should clarify this. Do you agree?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Lucy<o:p></o:p></span>=
> > > > </p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <div>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> > > > 0in 0in">
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-
> > > family:&quot=
> > > > ;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span
> > > style=3D"font-s=
> > > > ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-
> serif&quot;">
> > > Linda Du=
> > > > nbar
> > > > <br>
> > > > <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:48 PM<br> <b>To:</b>
> > > > Lucy yong; Yakov Rekhter<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br>
> > > > <b>Subject:</b> RE: comment on rekhter-vm-
> > > mobility<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Lucy,<o:p></o:p></span=
> > > > ></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">For VMs
> > > instantiated w=
> > > > ith applications which need to sit in multiple subnets, the VIDs
> > > > are
> > > encode=
> > > > d in the data frames sent out from the VMs. For this scenario,
> > > > even
> > > if the =
> > > > NVE is on server, VIDs are there between  VMs and Virtual Switch.
> > > > <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D">Linda<o:p></o:p></span=
> > > > ></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
> > > style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
> > > > n></p>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue
> 1.5pt;padding:0in
> > > 0in 0in =
> > > > 4.0pt">
> > > > <div>
> > > > <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
> > > 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> > > > 0in 0in">
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-
> > > family:&quot=
> > > > ;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span
> > > style=3D"font-s=
> > > > ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-
> serif&quot;">
> > > nvo3-bou=
> > > > [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] <b>On Behalf Of
> > > > </b>Lucy yong<br> <b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 01, 2012 2:17
> > > > PM<br> <b>To:</b> Yakov Rekhter<br> <b>Cc:</b> [email protected]<br>
> > > > <b>Subject:</b> [nvo3] comment on rekhter-vm-
> > > mobility<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Yakov,<o:p></o:p></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">It is carefully written about L2-based
> CUG.
> > > <o:p></o=
> > > > :p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">The scenarios that the draft describe are
> > > about that=
> > > >  VMs in a CUG are exposed to a physical network, as it is
> referred
> > > > to
> > > &#822=
> > > > 0;L2 physical domain&#8221; in the doc. &nbsp;To use NVO3
> > > > framework
> > > terms, =
> > > > it is the case when NVE on TOR and VM on servers. The  connection
> > > > between Servers and TOR is via a physical wire where VLAN
> > > is im=
> > > > plemented. The draft describes the necessary rules of usage of
> > > > VLAN-
> > > IDs to =
> > > > enable VM move in a L2-based CUG. I agree these
> > > > rules.<o:p></o:p></p> <p
> class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Comment I want to give is that, one
> > > > motivation
> > > to do=
> > > >  NVO for DC is to create a true virtual network &nbsp;environment
> > > > for
> > > the V=
> > > > Ms in a closed user group to communicate and to decouple the
> > > > virtual
> > > enviro=
> > > > nment from the physical DC networks which  has a lot of constrain
> > > > to support VM mobility. &nbsp;You draft has
> > > specifi=
> > > > ed these necessary constrains.&nbsp; However, if we just want to
> > > implement =
> > > > in this way, we do not achieve our objective here: to create a
> > > > true
> > > virtual=
> > > >  network environment that is decoupled from  a physical
> > > > network.<o:p></o:p></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">It is clear that, in nvo3, we want to
> > > > support
> > > that N=
> > > > VE is on Server. In this case, it will create a true virtual
> > > networking for=
> > > >  VM communications. The traffic from a VM will not directly
> expose
> > > > on
> > > a wir=
> > > > e and DC switches any more. Thus,
> > > >  VM mobility does not face these VLAN ID issues and no need such
> > > constrains=
> > > > . It will be good for the draft to point out or clarify
> > > that.<o:p></o:p></p=
> > > > >
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Assuming an &nbsp;NVE is on server,
> &nbsp;a
> > > > VM
> > > can b=
> > > > e moved from one server to another if NVEs on both servers are
> > > members of t=
> > > > he same VN or if NVEs on the both servers are member of different
> > > > VNs
> > > but t=
> > > > wo VNs have interconnection. I think that the  draft should
> > > > mention this case and distinct it from when NVE is on
> > > ToRs.<o=
> > > > :p></o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">In section 3.3, the scenarios should cover
> > > both when=
> > > >  another server is not in the L2 physical domain or in the
> > > different&nbsp; =
> > > > L2 physical domain that are connected to this L2 physical domain.
> > > &nbsp;IMO=
> > > > , two have different. The first case need to  let NVE on server
> to
> > > > join the L3 physical domain
> > > first.<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I think, this draft motivates us more to
> > > > have
> > > NVE on=
> > > >  server when DC operator want to a lot of vm mobility for
> resource
> > > and perf=
> > > > ormance optimization. &nbsp;Without NVE on server, you have these
> > > constrain=
> > > > s (or rules) to deal with. IETF is to work  out the solutions
> that
> > > > allow these configuration and device still
> > > can inte=
> > > > rwork under different configurations. It is up to DC operator to
> > > chose whic=
> > > > h configuration is proper for their business.
> > > > <o:p></o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I agree, regardless of NVE on server or on
> > > > ToR,
> > > the =
> > > > issue in section 3.4 we need to solve in nvo3
> > > > solution.<o:p></o:p></p> <p
> > > > class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Lucy<o:p></o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </div>
> > > > </body>
> > > > </html>
> > > >
> > > > --_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44816464dfweml505mbx_--
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Reply via email to