Thomas, Besides optimal routing that is covered in section 3.4, the draft also talks about layer-2 extension and differentiation between VLANs and VLAN-Ids - sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Although section 3.5 may be obvious but it is worth to be noted as well.
Also, this draft talks about the presence of these mobility issues not just for intra-DC but also for inter-DC scenarios (and furthermore inter-AS). I either don't see these mobility issues been covered in the problem statement draft or if they have been covered not to this extent. Although you may have a concern regarding proliferation of additional drafts; however, at the same time we don't want to impede the progress either. So, if it is decided to merge this draft with problem statement draft, then the coverage in problem statement draft should be to the same extent as this one. Since Yakov is the primary author of this draft, I'd like to hear his take. Cheers, Ali On 11/28/12 11:02 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yakov, > >Actually, the chairs did respond to your first request. See >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg01764.html. > >The one response to this I see in the archive said: > >> > Can you and/or your co-authors please comment on the following two >> > questions: 1. How does the draft apply to our charter and milestones? >> >> WH> it addresses the following part of the charter: >> Support the placement and migration of VMs anywhere within the data >> center, without being limited by DC network constraints such as the IP >> subnet boundaries of the underlying DC network. > >This seems like a pretty weak justification to me. Not every document >related to VM migration will automatically be in scope as an NVO3 WG >document. IMO, this document by itself doesn't really make sense as a >standalone WG document. > >The document is pretty short. If you skip the definitions/background, >the "meat" seems to be section 3.4. This section covers ground that >the problem statement covers (though could be expanded on, i.e., to >explicitly also mention the case of in-bound traffic). I.e., see >section 3.7. (And note that the issue can occur within a single data >center, you don't need to have a virtual network span multiple data >centers as your document seems to focus on.) > >My suggestion would be to have the problem statement expand section >3.7 to explicitly cover both the ingress and egress cases. > >Thomas > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
