Marc, I don't know what the technologies you hint to and assume that you mean L2VPN and L3VPN specified in IETF. L2VPN is for intra subnet. L3VPN can apply for both intra and inter subnet. SP typically offer either L2VPN or L3VPN service to customer, which is why IETF worked that way. In DC, DC provider need to offer customer a network that may contain multiple VNs, where some may be L2 overlay and some L3 overlay. IRB has been used in the network, but it is not offered as a service to customer nor in overlay mode. Further IETF has no specification to it too. Thus, we can't assume that is a standard technology referring to here.
Regards, Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:53 AM > To: Linda Dunbar; Lucy yong; Benson Schliesser; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 > > 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
