If a router were to route an IP packet that was not addressed to it on the MAC layer, it would cause a new interesting category of routing loops. Not the kind I'd like to study, so let's not do that.
-- Jakob Heitz. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Lucy yong > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:09 AM > To: Vivek Kumar; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version > Notification for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] > > Very good question. I am confused too. All the traffic from a > VM/server has IP and MAC header. Thus, they are all IP packets. > Lucy > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of > > Vivek Kumar > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:02 AM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version > > Notification for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] > > > > 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: > > > <[email protected] > > om> > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
