I completely agree with Thomas. This had me scratching my head too. - Larry
On 4/19/13 7:06 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
