Hi Sharon, The goal is to have a name for a "logically centralized" entity (oracle) that can carry mapping information for the NVEs, such as VN-Name to VN-Context, Overlay (inner) Address to Underlay (outer) Address. People start getting uncomfortable when they see a name that implies a particular interaction model between the NVE and the oracle. I think it all comes down to push vs pull and the scope of how much information is pushed/pulled to the NVE and when.
To me a Directory Service implies a directory lookup (pull), where a Controller/Orchestrator implies an intelligent push to only the NVEs that need it. An "authority" does not imply either model to me (similar to oracle). So, for me the litmus test is whether the name implies push or pull. I think David brought up BGP as an example of a protocol that is more of a push and therefore doesn't fit into the pull model implied by a directory, nor in my opinion the added intelligence of a controller/orchestrator. - Larry From: Sharon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 4:45 PM To: Larry Kreeger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Pat Thaler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes Policies are typically mapped to addressable identities so a bit off but not totally .. this does raise that litmus question again .. take a policy say ACL mapped to addressable identity .. this needs a lookup service over a very large flat space the kind you typically use directories and databases for .. so why isn't this metric / benchmark the litmus test rather then the protocol? Sent from my iPhone 650 492 0794 On Apr 9, 2013, at 4:28 PM, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Lucy, So, would you consider the VN-Context to be an address? Others have also suggested that the oracle may contain policy information as well, which I would not consider an address mapping. - Larry From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 3:24 PM To: Larry Kreeger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Pat Thaler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes LK2> I would not object to that. We had used the word "Information" to replace the word "Address" from a different suggestion for the term "Address Mapping Authority" since we felt the oracle would hold more than just address mappings. [Lucy] For NVO3, this is for address mapping authority. Although the authority process may require holding other information, the result is the address mapping. IMO: the term of Address Mapping Authority (AMA) is fine although the sound likes IMA. Lucy >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. [pat] Even if it was always going to be virtual, Tenant System Interface is a clear and distinct name – it’s a name, not a full description. But vNIC was probably inconsistent as we came to an understanding that the interface could be virtual or physical. There is no reason to restrict the tenant interfaces to being virtual. >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". _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
