I’m not sure how vNIC bonding works either. Most bonding I’m familiar with is at the level of bonding physical NICs.
Bonding (or teaming) is an ill-defined term. It is used to mean either Link Aggregation (LAG, originally part of IEEE 802.3 and now IEEE 802.1AX) or one of several non-standardized ways of using multiple physical NICs so that they appear as one NIC to the upper layer clients. An IEEE 802.1AX LAG should be transparent to anything we are doing in NVO3. As currently defined, a LAG is two or more (physical) links that go between two systems (e.g. between an end system and a bridge or between two bridge) where each system divides the traffic amongst the links keeping a conversation (e.g. MAC address, VLAN and priority; some systems also include higher layer fields in making that determination) on a single (physical) link to minimize mis-ordering. The existence of the LAG should be transparent to any client above LAG’s MAC Client interface. Note: There is an IEEE 802.1AX revision underway to add Dual Resilient Network Interconnect where the links in a LAG can be connecting a set of bridges in one provider network to a set of bridges in another provider network, but it isn’t clear that there is any intersection between that and NVO3 which would normally operate within a network administered by a single organization. Regards, Pat From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:14 PM To: Reith, Lothar; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: NVO3 Terminology changes I am not sure how vNIC bonding works? Is it common? However I think we can simply replace vNIC with Tenant System, when vNIC have multiple IP address, such vNIC with multiple IP address could be treated as multiple TSIs, i.e., one tenant system with multiple TS interfaces. This also gets in line with what Pat comment on this list. Regards! -Qin 发件人: Reith, Lothar [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2013年4月15日 19:18 收件人: Qin Wu; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: AW: [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]> [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Qin Wu Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 09:17 An: Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected]<mailto:[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
