Linda, I do not see why nvo3 differs from other technologies when it comes to switching and routing.
Obviously a tenant may have different VNs. Communication within an L2 VN is based on traditional switching, Communication across L2 VNs is based on tradtional routing. IRB-like capabilities (as I think that this is what you are hinting) can be supported but this is implementation specific. Hence, I'm not sure what a specific "inter-subnet communication" section would contain. Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Linda Dunbar > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:05 PM > To: Lucy yong; Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 > > I second Lucy's comments. > > Inter Virtual Network communication (or inter subnet > communication) is a big part of data centers. Hosts in data > center do communicate with external peers. Many tenants to DC > need more than one Virtual Network Instances. And hosts in > those virtual network instances do communicate with each > other and some communicate with peers via public internet. > > > IMHO, Inter-subnet communication set NV03 apart from other > overlay done by IETF, such as L2VPN, TRILL, LISP, etc. > Therefore, the framework should have a section on "inter > Subnet Communication". > > There are some inter virtual network discussion in > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition/. > The content from this draft should be included in the general > framework. > > > Linda > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > > Of Lucy yong > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:22 PM > > To: Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 > > > > I read this version and glad to see adding a section for VM > mobility. > > > > Some comments: > > > > 1) The introduction states that the rationale for using overlay > > networks in DC is for building multi-tenant data center > networks. It > > also mentions that a tenant network may consist of one or > more virtual > > networks. However, the architecture and reference model is > focusing on > > single virtual network overlay architecture only. It is lack of > > describing the architecture and model about multiple > virtual networks > > forming one tenant network, i.e. virtual network overlay > > interconnections. > > > > Thus, a question to the WG chair, is this the scope for nvo3 WG? If > > yes, that is fine and the framework document should make it > very clear > > that the framework document describes architecture model of > a virtual > > network and only applies to a tenant network if it consists of one > > virtual network that may be implemented by either L2 overlay or L3 > > overlay. a tenant network that contain more than one > virtual networks > > is outside scope of this document. If not, we can either have one > > framework draft to architect both, or we have two separate > documents, > > one to intra virtual network overlay and another for inter virtual > > network overlay. > > > > Without clarifying this, I am not clear if the framework > document is > > working on a virtual network over L3 infrastructure or a tenant > > network over L3 infrastructure. Two are not equivalents. > > > > 2) Figure 2 illustrate a logical service connectivity for a single > > tenant. First of all, it should not show L3 infrastructure in the > > figure at all. Second, I interpret this figure as one > tenant network > > consisting of four virtual networks, three L2 virtual > networks and one > > L3 virtual network. It should point out that VMs on a L2 virtual > > network may reside on the same or different servers. The > drawing and > > team LAN make easy to thing they are physical LANs. In fact > they are > > not. VM on LAN11 and VM on LAN12 may reside on the same > server. Thus > > it is very important to state them out clearly. Finally, > based on my > > comment 1), it should clarify what this document address > regarding to > > this figure here. > > > > 3) in Section 3.3, "In DC environments utilizing VM > technologies, an > > important feature > > is that VMs can move from one server to another > server in the > > same > > or different L2 physical domains (within or across DCs) in a > > seamless manner." > > > > What does the L2 physical domain mean here? Why need to > mention this? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of > > > Benson Schliesser > > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:28 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 > > > > > > This email begins a two week working group last call for > > > draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02. > > > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 list. > > > > > > This working group last call will end on Friday 08-March-2013. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -Benson & Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
