> > This is a more complex type of service to provide. And I'm not sure we > need this type of service to be provided by one VN. A (seemingly > simpler) alternative would be to put each subnet in its own VN and > allow inter-subnet traffic to be handed as inter-VN traffic. So long > as that case is optimized (i.e., the ingress NVE can tunnel directly > to the egress NVE without adding triangular routing), this would seem > to be a cleaner way to implement this.
[Lucy] I see this as shifting the complexity to operator, which is worse than what I propose. I agree that this is more complex service than pure L2 overlay or pure L3 overlay. If we define it as a new service, we can have a solution for the operator. This will avoid an operator to construct individual L2 overlays for the subnets and an L3 overlay to interconnect them for a tenant virtual network. Lucy > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
