I agree. The important thing for us (NVO3 WG) is how the TSI is seen from the network side, but it is useful to articulate common examples of how the TSI is seen from the TS side.
- Larry On 4/19/13 11:48 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >"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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
