Tom, > > > [Lucy] No, this is not what I mean. I mean we need a new service > > type to be able to support a single NVo3 virtual network that > > contains both cases via a L2 interface. > > By "both cases", do you mean both L2 service and L3 service? > > That is, do you mean a single Virtual Network, where TSs are > sending/receiving L2 frames, but in some cases the NVE treats them as > IP (forwarding them based on their TS IP header) while in other cases > they are treated as L2 (where the NVE forwards them based on the TS L2 > header and doesn't look at the IP header (if there is one)?) [Lucy] Yes, this is what I mean. But I don't want to use two services to construct a tenant virtual network in some case. Can I just use one service to achieve it? > > And can one TS send *both* types, or does a TS have to pick one format > (always) with different TSs on the same VN possibly choosing different > services? [Lucy] Yes, one TS can send a frame to a TS that is on the same subnet, it can also send a frame to a TS that is on the different subnet. > > If so, the WG has discussed this case before - and there are issues. > One issue is how does an NVE know whether to forward a packet received > from the TS using the packets L2 header vs. its IP header? For an IP > packet, it will have both headers, and depending on which choice is > made, you might get different forwarding behavior. That would probably > not be good. [Lucy] You get it. But a frame from TS have both Ethernet and IP header. From TS perspective, the frame to the TS on the same subnet will be bridged, the frame to the TS on the different subnet goes to the router. We need to a service to guarantee that. > > > [Lucy] L2 service assumes a L2 interface and L3 service assume a L3 > > interface. VM has L2 interface only. This is about to address VM > > communication in a single nvo3 virtual network. assumption is to not > > change VM network function. > > Regarding the first statement, I don't see it this way at all. I > assume that even for L3 service, where all tenant traffic is assumed > to be IP, the interface between the TS and the NVE will still be L2 > Ethernet. However, the only allowed packets would be IP and ARP (and > maybe DHCP and small number of other IP-related protocols sent at > L2). Any others would simply be discarded. [Lucy] you need to configure an IP interface first for the service. > > To be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it means to have an "L3 > interface" between the TS and NVE in the case where the TS is getting > L3 service only. Does that mean the TS is sending packets that DO NOT > have an L2 header in front of them? I.e., between the TS and NVE? > Because that would presumably require changes to VMs, it would seem to > be a non-starter. And what would be the point? [Lucy] This is not what I mean. I mean for L3 service, you need to configure IP interface. All the frames from/to VM are Ethernet frames. > > > [Lucy] But L3 service requires L3 interface between PE and CE. Do we > > want to change VM and vswitch to support that? > > NVO3 doesn't have PE/CE terminology. :-) [Lucy] OK, you are right. Should be NVE/TS in nvo3.
Lucy > > Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
