David Allan I <[email protected]> writes: > I have some sympathy with Eric's point but would suggest inverting the > relationship to address your concern. The generic class is NIC, which > may or may not be virtualizated....the virtual form being associated > with VMs, and the generic class being associated with addressed end > systems in general. > > I think moving away from NIC to produce some gratuitous new term is > not doing us any favors...
I think a TSI is roughly equivalent to a NIC, but from the perspective of a Tenant System. I view it as the entity that the Tenant System sees. To the tenant, it looks like a NIC, and is how the Tenant System interacts with the (virtual) network. Using some other term than NIC or vNIC is (IMO) useful because this is a Tenant System entity, whereas a NIC/vNIC applies when network virtualization is not in use. It is good to have a term that distinguishes those cases. Maybe a "Tenant NIC" (or TNIC) would make a better name than TSI. (Not sure it's a better term, but worth thinking about, especially if this really is essentially a "NIC".) Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
