Hi, comments inline:
On 26 Dec, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Lucy yong wrote: > Kireeti, > > It seems that you make EVPN and IPVPN orthogonal now: If IP, use IPVPN, if > not, EVPN. > > Do you also see that the end system can be distinguished this way? A NVE could support both services, IPVPN and EVPN. The guest/tenant should have no need to understand the method of communication chosen by the hypervisor. > > Using IP VPN for all the IP applications is good in one way, but it requires > the substantial changes on all the hosts/hypervisor and require the behavior > changes on the VM/physical server. Giving millions VM/servers are there, will > this realistic? Why do we ask all the tenant systems to change behavior in > order to use of IPVPN? The changes necessary to support IPVPN or EVPN are located on the NVE. Likely this would be a kernel loadable module to the bridging an routing stack. I think the changes proposed are highly realistic given the current ecosystem of SDN/Cloud companies that are doing all sorts of interesting things in the networking stack of hypervisors. Best, Truman > > IMO, IPVPN is very useful for many applications and it is also necessary to > support multi-tenancy in DC without changing tenant system behavior. > > Thanks, > Lucy > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Kireeti Kompella > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:21 PM > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H > Cc: Thomas Narten; [email protected]; Aldrin Isaac > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version Notification > for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] > > Hi Maria, > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 13:36, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> wrote: > The question is what problem does EVPN solve? > > Pure layer 2 traffic. Yes, it does exist, and needs to be dealt with > properly. But just that. > In the context of DC, EVPN can only address packets bridged in the same VLAN. > If most packets are routed then EVPN, even if all the complexity problems are > addressed, doesn't achieve anything for the traffic that is routed. I believe > it is the wrong tradeoff to design a solution around EVPN (i.e., around > bridging). > > Agreed. > > Kireeti. > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
