Had to forward this as the commenter used an invalid email address.
Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> > Date: March 13, 2013, 5:11:01 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) > > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: > > [email protected] > > Technical details of permanent failure: > DNS Error: Domain name not found > > ----- Original message ----- > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; > d=gmail.com; s=20120113; > h=x-received:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from > :message-id:date:to:mime-version:x-mailer; > bh=M1TL6c0sHzx2Id1yUCc17V47J+w39+N0Y9+Zce455O8=; > b=gpxFHXeLBl1i40U1rIhvlZ6RRApxNFKV7h9pJzFzW6Tx3RjHpCSlDqx9hb/LFbb9Ub > CYjoacI0UGGUVuA4LN/cwakYxLmBb1yLaIqGF7/7/WQ8HcUG4YRhdALlRT+W8zJ2VVco > LKEHbnOVEussT4CzTiTGXDaQedrDee7pgkdDs0bpyMtScXo7k7jB7IwlCO3pN71FelY5 > ywk1RgP4qFFuDdXOGsrrXS8JqhO91kUr2rbwgCR2/w90rjsOVX1CB90nha67j0PlaA5w > 2EnOtVKsfS88Js25u9PuT5XvZyzvmEJsUK3dgZWIGHKkJJe9opX31xhzO6Z3+ojQV9yg > q7lQ== > X-Received: by 10.68.143.167 with SMTP id sf7mr48452806pbb.21.1363209061007; > Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:11:01 -0700 (PDT) > Return-Path: <[email protected]> > Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:7d23:71af:5434:aa14? > ([2001:df8:0:16:7d23:71af:5434:aa14]) > by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qd8sm31117738pbc.29.2013.03.13.14.10.58 > (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); > Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:10:59 -0700 (PDT) > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Subject: Your comment on draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02 > From: Eric Gray <[email protected]> > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:10:59 -0400 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) > X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B146) > > Qin, > > In reading your comment, it seems that you're both asking what we > mean by the text and answering the question with your next question. > > The text you ask about is identifying the case where more than one > router connects a virtual network to an otherwise separate virtual > network. The optimal forwarding concern is that it is difficult for a > virtual host or server located within the first virtual network to know > which of the multiple routers connecting the two virtual networks is > the optimal choice for connecting to a host or server in the second > virtual network. > > This is a concern when there are possibly multiple local forwarding > devices between the first host/server and any of the potential routers > that connect the two virtual networks and/or a similar situation exists > in the second virtual network between any of these candidate routers > and the second host/server. How is the host supposed to determine > which of the multiple routers in this case provides the optimal path. > > This is pretty much the case you identify when you ask how we are > "going to deal with the optimal forwarding between two VMs [that] > belong to different subnet[s]." > > It seems that we're at least talking about the same thing. Can you > make a specific text proposal that would make our text clearer? > > -- > Eric > > You wrote: > I reviewed the change in section 3.7 "optimal forwarding"of NVO3 problem > statement. > It said: > " > IP implementations in network endpoints typically do not distinguish > between multiple routers on the same subnet - there may only be a > single default gateway in use, and any use of multiple routers > usually considers all of them to be one-hop away. > " > It seems you talk about one tenant system is multihomed to multiple NVEs in > the same subnet. > I am not sure how much of this is related to optimal forwarding? > Are you assuming only one NVE is active? or all the NVEs placed in the same > subnet are active? > or some of NVE placed in the same subnet are active to a set of VMs while the > other
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
