+1, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas > Narten > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:41 AM > To: Qin Wu > Cc: Eric Gray; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem- > statement > > Hi Qin. > > > Your proposed text improve a lot since it deal with both communication > > between two VN but also communication between one VN and one > > Non-VN, using general term "gateway" makes sense to me. > > Regarding my added text, what I am trying to say if we need to > > consider VM movement between two VNs (i.e.,VM mobility case), > > IMO, no. > > My assumption is that the basic model we have is that a VM is > associated with one VN (** but see below). Movement from one VN to > another is not really part of the model. Movement from one VN to > another raises a bunch of questions, including, perhaps whether a > change in IP address of the VM is needed. > > Unless someone can make a compelling argument for this case (i.e., > what the use case and semantics are), I just see it as adding > complexity without value. > > **note: a VM can be associated with more than one VM, but then it has > multiple interfaces, each connected to one VN. But then, movemment > from one VN to another implies that one interface is first associated > with VNA and then with VNB, which then falls back to the same case > as a VM having only one interface and one VN connection. > > 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
