My comments are inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:04 AM > To: Kireeti Kompella; NAPIERALA, MARIA H > Cc: Aldrin Isaac; Lucy yong; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-nvo3- > frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt > > > > On 12/17/12 1:57 PM, "Kireeti Kompella" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >For IP traffic, whether intra and inter-subnet, IP VPNs suffice. > > Yep. [Lucy] not sure. We are working on the network virtualization. The one of goals is to virtualizes the enterprise physical networks that provides the networking for compute resource on a DC common infrastructure. If you look at today's enterprise data center networks, do they all use routers without any switch? Not at all. If routers can do all the functions, why it is not the case today in any physical network? You may argue that they are legacy. But I do not see a new built DC without a switch too. Why is that? How can we assume that IP VPN is sufficient for a tenant virtual network. > > > >The solution is simple: route if IP, bridge if not. Yes, one could do > >IRB, but why? IRB brings in complications, especially for multicast. > > Exactly, thank you for speaking out. [Lucy] Again, IRB are widely used in enterprise data center. It is useful. How do we know that IP VPN is not complicated for a tenant virtual network? > > > >I'm sure someone suggested this already, so put me down as supporting > >this view. > > I believe Pedro gave detailed explanations many times a few months ago. > Of > course, Maria and I had been expressing such opinions all along on-line > and off-line, and brushed off good amount of bullets. :-). [Lucy] IMO: Pedro's solution applies to certain application, but not other application. For example, his draft does not mention how to provide a broadcast for a subnet. Unless a tenant virtual network does not need this at all, we can not remove this requirement. > > > > >If there is a case for _only_ intra-subnet traffic, one may create an > >E-VPN to handle both IP and non-IP; but I suspect this is a rare case. > > A solution just for some very narrow cases is not that too useful. [Lucy] Not at all. Another objective of NV03 is the ability to move TS among different servers regardless if they are on the same or different subnet. Do you see this is "very narrow cases"?
Sorry, we are back to use VPN terms again. I did not start this. Regards, Lucy > > >From that point of view, I would like to see E-VPNs in the data center > >*always* coupled with IP VPNs, and only dealing with non-IP traffic. > > Do you mean the following? IP VPN alone is sufficient if all traffic is > L3 > or handling the majority traffic which is IP; but E-VPN is not in the > same > case, E-VPN needs to leverage IP VPN for inter-subnet routing (unless > you > never get out of a subnet), therefore it needs to "*always* coupled > with > IP VPNs"? > If this is correct understanding, and we are talking about VPN cases > only > (there are also other non-VPN options too), I agree with you. > > The "*always* coupled" wording makes me a little nervous, better to ask > you to elaborate. > > What I don't want to see is that the implementation ties IP VPN and E- > VPN > together. If the traffic is IP (might well be 90+% cases), there should > not be any E-VPN involvement. If both L2 and L3 are needed, there > should > be clear demarcation, not mixed together, not sharing the same VRF, not > make one VPN with some l2 sites and some l3 sites. Let's keep it clean > and > simple. > > > > >This may appear drastic, but I think operationally, this is will > simplify > >things. > > Yes, operation simplicity is the key to success. IP VPN is a living > proof. > Others are not at par. > > I think Thomas Narten and Maria both expressed the point to avoid > complication, agree with them too. > > > I have a larger question, not to Kireeti or any particular person. > How come we only talk about MPLS VPNs here now? > What happened to other technologies? Were not VXLAN and NVGRE the > original > motivation for nvo3? > I am a MPLS VPN person, but I also don't believe in one size fits all. > IP > VPN or E-VPN are right for some operators, cannot say for everyone. > Where > are the folks talking non MPLS topics? > > Luyuan > > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
