Hi Truman, If NVE provides both IPVPN and EVPN to a TS, should we define a new service type for NVE?
Lucy From: Truman Boyes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:43 AM To: Lucy yong Cc: Kireeti Kompella; NAPIERALA, MARIA H; 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, 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]> [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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
