Just a light content comment (summary does reflect the meeting content in my view)
Seems perfectly logical that an Overlay will need a method of sharing global information per entities "beyond" the Underlay, and that it's "Oracle-Like" mechanism e.g you ask it questions and get answers .. even in Delphi the Oracle didn't pre guess questions ... .. Also mapping /IMA seems a perfectly reasonable reduction of what this service offers, and distributed directory captures how it offers it - after all if there is an Overlay there is also an Underlay - a perfectly functioning network to anchor such s mechanism .. What's not clear is why insisting on BGP if there is a clear claim BGP is not a directory oriented protocol ? Sent from my iPhone 650 492 0794 On Apr 8, 2013, at 6:12 PM, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]> wrote: > At the NVO3 WG meeting in Orlando, I brought up some suggestions for > terminology changes/additions and had an AI to bring this to the list…so here > goes. I would prefer to see constructive suggestions in responses. In other > words, please suggest something better if you object to these. > > 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". > > 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. > > Looking forward to your feedback, Larry > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
