Hi Qin, My responses are below marked with LK>. - Larry
From: Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:20 PM To: Larry Kreeger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: NVO3 Terminology changes 1) Oracle -> Information Mapping Authority Stewart mentioned that he has copyright concerns with using the term "oracle", and others have expressed distaste as well. In draft-kreeger-nvo3-hypervisor-nve-cp-01 we replaced the term with "Information Mapping Authority" (IMA). We would like to get consensus on using this new term in all WG documents going forward. In the meeting Linda expressed a concern that IMA might get confused with IMA being confused with the acronym for Inverse Multiplexing for ATM, and suggested something like "Directory Service" to which David Black replied that she might have trouble convincing people that BGP can be categorized as a "Directory Service". [Qin]: Looks good to me, also you may change Oracle into Oracle backend System. 2) VNIC -> Tenant System Interface The term VNIC is actually used in the framework document, but never defined. In kreeger-nvo3-hypervisor-nve-cp-01 we defined a VNIC as "A Virtual NIC that connects a Tenant System to a Virtual Network Instance (VNI)." In NVO3 (myself included) we often use VM when we are talking about "Tenant Systems" and talk about VMs connecting to a VNI; However, a VM can actually connect to multiple VNIs through multiple VNICs…but VNICs are very specific to Virtual Machines. If we are to use the more correct "Tenant System" instead of VM, we should use a more generic term for the interface on the tenant system itself than VNIC. We have suggested using "Tenant System Interface" (TSI) for this, which we would like to see formally defined in the Framework document and shown to correspond with VAPs within the NVE. [Qin]: Can Tenant System interface be a physical interface? If not, I suggest to change Tenant System virtual interface. LK> I see no reason why a Tenant System Interface must be virtual (although it is quite likely) - the definition in the framework for a tenant system says "A physical or virtual system…" . I don't see that adding the word "virtual" helps. I believe one tenant system can host multiple VMs, each VM may have multiple vNIC adapters that it uses to communicate with both the virtual and physical networks. LK> A VM is one example of a tenant system…so it would not host VMs. You may be thinking of "End Device". So VM can use multiple vNIC to connect to multiple VN. When one vNIC are assigned with multiple IP addresses and a single MAC addess, each vNIC can use multiple IP address to connect to multiple VN. Regarding vNIC -> Tenant System interface, I am not sure we have to replace vNIC with Tenant System interface since vNIC and Tenant System interface seems two different things and can be mapped in 1 to 1 relation. So I think both term can be used and how they are related to each other can be clarified when needed. LK> I agree that there is no need to globally replace VNIC with TSI, just as there is no need to globally replace VM with TS. A VM (with a VNIC) is just one common example of a TS (with a TSI). However, when being general the TS/TSI terminology is clearer in that it covers all possible cases, not just the common VM/VNIC case. Looking forward to your feedback, Larry
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
