Thomas, This sounds correct.
Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Thomas Narten > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:07 AM > To: Qin Wu > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [nvo3] vNICs and pNics in draft-wu-nvo3-nve2nve-04.txt > > Qin Wu <[email protected]> writes: > > > [Qin]: I agree with one tenant system may have one pNIC and one ore > > multiple vNICs, > > Let me zero on in this because I don't quite understand this model, and > I suspect this point is leading to the back-and-forth on the > terminology thread. The two terms are also used in draft-wu-nvo3- > nve2nve-04.tx, which says: > > > o Each tenant system is corresponding to one virtual machine. > > Each tenant system has only one pNIC and one or more vNIC > > adapters that it uses to communicate with both the virtual and > > physical networks.The pNIC and vNIC adapters each virtual > > machine has belong to a single tenant. > > To me, a Tenant System (TS) doesn't have pNICS and vNICs. It has NICs. > By definition, a TS is connected to one or more virtual networks (VNs). > If it has a native connection to the DC network, that is out-of-scope > for NVO3. Plus, I don't know why it would do that, or what implication > it would have for NVO3. > > To the TS, it has NICs, but it really doesn't know whether they are > physical or virtual. The whole point is that the TS just uses the NICs > it has as if they were physical. Hence, it doesn't make sense to talk > about a TS having both kinds of connections. Shouldn't that just be > completely transparent to the TS? Why are you distinguishing vNIC and > pNIC in the context of a TS? > > 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
