Hi Kireeti, One clarification . When you say "route if IP, bridge otherwise" , did you mean that all IP packets should be routed even if they come without router MAC address ( MAC-DA doesn't match the router address) ?
Regards, Vivek Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:48:59 -0800 From: Kireeti Kompella <[email protected]> To: Lucy yong <[email protected]> Cc: Thomas Narten <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]>, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] Message-ID: <CABRz93VCm57rc59SdWNuDZuQRfbv_0=ko99mnttrfocysmh...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Lucy, On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> 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?**** > > ** ** > > 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 only change needed is on the NVE. If this resides in the host/hypervisor, so be it. The NVE has to change to implement IP VPN/EVPN. The additional change to "route if IP, bridge otherwise" is minor. No change is needed on the VM/tenant system. BTW, as an example, IRB (if my MAC, then route else bridge) is completely transparent to the end host (VM, tenant system). Kireeti. 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 > > -- Kireeti _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
