"Pat Thaler" <[email protected]> writes: > In addition to Thomas's point, we should not restrict the number of > physical NICs that a tenant system can have. Some tenant systems > will have more than one physical NIC.
Agreed. > We may describe some typical tenant systems as part of examining use > cases, but NVO3 should define behavior in terms of the network > interface, i.e. TSI, behavior and should not restrict tenant system > architecture. Another way of looking at it is that the TSI is an attachement point/interface to the TS. The point where the TSI attaches to the TS has two sides. On the tenant facing side, it appears to be a NIC. It looks like a NIC, behaves like a NIC, etc. On the side facing away from the tenant (e.g., the hypervisor in the case of a virtualized system) we call it a TSI. The TSI side will have attributes that are specific to NVO3. Does that make sense? Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
