I would like to make some comments on draft-kreeger-nvo3-hypervisor-nve-cp-01.
In section 2 "Terminology" it states: “VN Alias: [...] A VN Name is independent of the underlying technology used to implement a VN and will generally not be carried in protocol fields of control protocols used in virtual networks. Rather, a VN Alias will be mapped into a VN Name where precision is required.” I think, it should state: “VN Alias: [...] A VN Alias is independent of the underlying technology used to implement a VN and will generally not be carried in protocol fields of control protocols used in virtual networks. Rather, a VN Alias will be mapped into a VN Name where precision is required.” “VN ID: A unique and compact identifier for a VN within the scope of a specific NVO3 administrative domain. It will generally be more efficient to carry VN IDs as fields in control protocols than VN Aliases. [...]” I think, it should state: “VN ID: A unique and compact identifier for a VN within the scope of a specific NVO3 administrative domain. It will generally be more efficient to carry VN IDs as fields in control protocols than VN Names.” The term "VNIC" is defined in the Terminology section. I support Larry's suggestion to replace that term with something more generic, i.e. Tenant System Interface (TSI). A TSI can be either a vNIC or pNIC as the term does not make any assumptions about the concrete implementation. The term "VNIC Name" is defined in the Terminology section. However, it is never used throughout the document. I think, knowing the VNIC Name might be helpful for the NVE in order to keep track of the addresses associated with a given VNIC. Therefore it might be useful to have the capability to signal the VNIC Name within the control protocol between the hypervisor and the NVE? I also have some questions on the draft: (1) According to its definition in the Terminology section the IMA (oracle) distributes and maintains mapping information for the entire overlay system. May it also contain policy information for VNs? If so, it should be mentioned in the definition. (2) In section 4.1 " it states: "An End Device that is making use of an offloaded NVE only needs to communicate the VN Name or ID to the NVE, and get back a locally significant tag value." Have you thought about the possibility to signal a VNIC port-profile identifier to the NVE? This identifier might refer to policy settings (ACLs, QoS, etc.) the NVE should apply to the VAP the VNIC of the TS is associated with. The VN ID might also be a part of the port-profile. Thanks, Florian
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
