Lucy,
> > > > This is about VM configuration models. The guest VM IPv4 > > > configuration > > > > could be: > > > > A) local /32 IP address + /32 point-to-point route to a > default > > > > gateway + default route. > > > > B) local /32 IP address + /24 to local Ethernet interface + > > > default > > > > route to an address on that /24. > > > > > > > > Both those models are supported by draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system- > 00. > > > [Lucy] When using the solution in the draft, you create one L3VPN > > > instances for case A. > > > Do you create one or more L3VPN instances for case B? > > > > I am not sure what you mean by "L3VPN instance"? > [Lucy] Original subject is about to construct a tenant network that > contain multiple subnets. This is a complication that is not desirable as it is bad idea to have to multiple subnets per VLAN. > If all tenant systems in the tenant use IP, do you construct on IP VPN for > the tenant network, or configure > multiple? Can tenant systems on the same subnet run a broadcast > application under this construction? > Configuring local /32 IP address on a tenant system means that there is > no longer host address, just having network address. Is this what we > want to do in the network virtualization in DC. Does this mean that in > the nvo3, a subnet is no longer useful? I am not expert on addressing > and like to hear people's opinion on this. > > > > > > > In the model B) a set of VMs are configured to belong to the same > > IP > > > > subnet (which is still often the case how the VM are being > > > configured). > > > > Both models can be supported. In the case of B), the NVE > implements > > > > proxy ARP for all the addresses on the /24. With proxy ARP, there > > is > > > no > > > > difference between B) and A) with respect to forwarding. > > > [Lucy] In case A, you forward on IP address. In case B, do you also > > > always forward on IP address? > > > How do you set up a policy per a subnet? > > > > > > > It is just that the virtual subnet has no locality across a data- > > > center. > > > [Lucy] Do you mean that both case A and B only apply within a DC? > > > > Virtual subnet has no locality either intra- or inter-DC. > [Lucy] Thanks for the explanation. WAN IPVPN [RFC4346] provides intra > and inter IP subnet routing seamlessly because PE treats CE as a router > and vice versa. Do you think that IPVPN-end-system fit all tenant IP > networks or applications? > > Regards, > Lucy > > > > Maria > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > nvo3 mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
