Hi Melinda, Thanks for your feedback. I'm about to issue a new revision of the draft before WG LC. I'll address your comments in this next revision (some of which had already been mentioned to me e.g. clarification between overlay and underlay).
Your feedback on the security section is more than welcome. Is there any chance you could send something within the next couple of days? Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [nvo3] Some brief comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-framework > > Summary: while there are a few nits and the security > considerations need to be completely rewritten, there are > part of the document that are really excellent. One > persistent issue is that the language is not always clear in > distinguishing between L2 and L3 transport, and L2 and L3 overlays. > > Melinda > > -------- > > Introduction (section 1), paragraph 3: what does "cope with" > mean? (also can delete "in order to") > > Could use a little more clarity around what's meant by L2 and > L3 throughout document. Might be useful to distinguish more > clearly between L2/L3 transport and L2/L3 emulation > > 1.2: under ELAN definition, MEF is not defined, recursive definition > > 1.3: top-of-rack should be defined in 1.2, as should DC GW > > Rewrite last para of 2.1: > > Core nodes utilize L3 techniques to interconnect NVE > nodes in support of the overlay network. These devices > perform forwarding based on an outer L3 tunnel header, and > generally do not maintain per-tenant service state. > However, some applications (e.g., multicast) may require > control plane or forwarding plane information that > pertain to a tenant, group of tenants, tenant service, or > a set of services that belong to one or more nvo3 > tunnels. When such tenant or tenant service-related > information is maintained in the core, overlay > virtualization provides mechanisms to manage that > information. > > 3.1.5.1 second para "Centralized controllers provide a > facility to maintain global and distribute that state to the > network [ ... ]" Global ?state? > > 4.1 it's not just "miscommunication" that can lead to > inefficiencies - misconfiguration may, as well. > > Don't really understand the point about hash-based load > balancing. Is the issue hash collisions or something else? > > Section 4 is overall really nice. > > The security consideration sections needs a rewrite. I keep > promising to help with that and not be able to find the time, > but I'll try to get to it in the next few weeks. > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
