Hi, Larry: Please see my followup comments below. Regards! -Qin 发件人: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2013年4月9日 11:36 收件人: Qin Wu; [email protected] 主题: Re: NVO3 Terminology changes
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. [Qin]: In that case, vNIC is not equivalent to Tenant System interface since tenant system interface can be either physical interface or virtual interface. The reason I propose such change is vNIC is virtual NIC not physical NIC, therefore if you replace vNIC with Tenant system interface, that means Tenant system interface only corresponds to virtual interfacel. >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". [Qin]: Not sure about that, the definition of “Tenant system” in Framework said: “ Tenant System: A physical or virtual system that can play the role of a host, or a forwarding element such as a router, switch, firewall, etc. It belongs to a single tenant and connects to one or more VNs of that tenant. ” So tenant system can be a host and host one or multiple VMs on it. What am I missing? >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. [Qin]: Agree, my interpretation of common case you mentioned is just a simple case. For the case where VM has multiple vNIC, you still can tread each vNIC as a VM that only has one vNIC and so such case is still a simple case. The only complicated case is one vNIC connect to Multiple VN using multiple IP addresses. Looking forward to your feedback, Larry
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
