Hi Thomas: Hmmm, so what you want is the notion of an attachment point to a particular layer, in this case to explicitly identify the overlay as the network attached to.... (?, just checking)
>From the tenants POV it cannot tell the difference, it just sees its network, >so I'm not sure the distinction is as useful as it sounds... Cheers Dave -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:12 PM To: David Allan I Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; Eric Gray Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
