When I think of TSI, I think of something different than a vNIC (or, or in the case of non-virtualized systems, a NIC). Of course, it's possible to create an implementation where a TSI is always a vNIC (or NIC), but I don't think it is always limited to that.
It might help to clarify the following properties of a TSI: - Can a TSI be associated with multiple NVEs? - Does a TSI carry traffic from only one tenant or multiple tenants? Anoop On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this may reflect some confusion around possible meanings of > “interface”. I believe that the notion of “interface” that is desired here > corresponds to a vNIC, not a bonded set of vNICs (and likewise to a NIC, > not a bonded set of NICs). If that clarification is clear, I think TSI > would be a reasonable term.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks, > --David**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Reith, Lothar > *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 7:18 AM > *To:* Qin Wu; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: 答复: NVO3 Terminology changes**** > > ** ** > > I believe that it is not possible to replace the term vNIC with “TSI”, > because multiple vNICs may form a single interface.**** > > ** ** > > AFAIK it is common practice to use vNIC bonding (LAG) for high > availability, where two vNICs of one VM are associated with different > physical NICs of the virtualization host running the VMs. Creating a LAG of > these 2 vNICs ( NIC-Bonding) creates a single Interface of the VM which > survives the outage of one of the both physical NICs.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Lothar**** > > ** ** > > *Von:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *Im Auftrag > von *Qin Wu > *Gesendet:* Montag, 15. April 2013 09:17 > *An:* Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] > *Betreff:* [nvo3] 答复: 答复: 答复: NVO3 Terminology changes**** > > ** ** > > >>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?**** > > **** > > >LK2> I think that you are assuming that "host" is synonymous with > "Hypervisor". In the definition above, I believe the term host relates to > the more traditional definition of an internet host such as in RFC 1122.** > ** > > **** > > > [Qin]: So “Host” in the definition of tenant system seems misleading since > we two have different interpretation to it. I agree Hypersor or Server or > Server blade can host multiple VMs, however in the framework document, it > also said, a host can be server or server blade in the definition of End > device.**** > > ** ** > > LK3> Only servers or server blades that are running hypervisors can host > multiple VMs. When we mean hypervisor we must say hypervisor (what form > factor of server it is running on is irrelevant). All hypervisors run on > servers, **** > > ** ** > > [Qin]: Yes.**** > > ** ** > > >but all servers are not running hypervisor software.**** > > ** ** > > [Qin]: Are you saying that not all server are running hypervisor software? > If yes, I agree. If not, would you like to clarify a little bit?**** > > **** > > Suppose one tenant A have 2 VMs resided in the server1 or hypervisor1. > Tenant B have 3 VMs resided in the server 1. **** > > **** > > Can we say each VM belonging to the same tenant is a tenant system **** > > ** ** > > LK3> Yes**** > > ** ** > > or multiple VMs of each tenant sharing the same Server belong to the same > single tenant system? i.e., Tenant System A corresponding to Tenant A > contains 2 VMs. Tenant System B corresponding to Tenant B contains 3 VMs.* > *** > > > LK3> No, that would be a really bad idea IMO. The fact that two VMs > happen to be running on the same server hardware is an ephemeral thing. > From one moment to the next a VM may migrate to a different server where > it becomes separated from the other VMs. Furthermore, I see no advantage > in defining a Tenant System to be a grouping of VMs from a networking > perspective since the thing that connects multiple VMs together is the > network.**** > > ** ** > > [Qin]: Good point, I fully agree with you. Here is the update to > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-nvo3-nve2nve-03.txt, (NVO3 > control plane requirement mostly for NVE to NV Authority/Controller > interface) which clears terminology confusing based on our discussion.**** > > ** ** > > > > > **** > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
