Hi, Thomas:
Thank for your reading and commenting on draft-wu-nvo3-nvo3-nve2nve.
The reason to propose to distinct pNIC from vNIC is becos
Some on the list argued vNIC was not necessary to degenerated into
A meaning include pNIC or NIC.
Following your discussion, I realized what you emphasized here is
Each TSI or NIC/vNIC plays two side roles, one role is facing tenant,
The other role is facing the side far away from tenant, i.e.,hypervisor side.
So is it possible for pNIC and vNIC are both facing hypervisor side.
I agree tenant does not need to distinguish pNIC from vNIC, however
Why Tenant system in the hypervisor side can not disntinguish pNIC from vNIC.
The definition of tenant system in the NVO3Framework documentsaid:
"
Tenant System: A physical or virtual system that can play the role
of a host, or a forwarding element such as a router, switch,
firewall, etc. It belongs to a single tenant and connects to one or
more VNs of that tenant.
"
Doesn't one Tenant system play both the role of virtual system and the role of
physical system?
Why tenant system can not distinct pNIC from vNIC.
It make sense to say NIC to include both vNIC and pNIC. But not sure NIC
Is right term, it remind me to revisit your proposal to use Tenant NIC
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg02236.html
makes a lot of sense.
However it doesn't make sense to me to say One TSI is both corresponding to
both a pNIC and a vNIC.
Whether we need to distinct pNIC from vNIC, two type of tenant NICs have
Already existed.
Please see my reply inline below.
Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:07 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 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.
[Qin]: According to Tenant system definition, tenant system could be a physical
system or virtual system.
That is to say, tenant system could have pNICs or vNICs that it uses to
communicate with both virtual and
physical network. Doesn't it?
But I realized in the draft I said
"a tenant system could have both pNICs and vNICs" which is not consistent with
the definition of tenant system.
Maybe we should make clear about this to say
"
A tenant system could have either pNICs or vNICs that it uses to communicate
with virtual and physical network.
Each pNIC or each vNIC will be treated as one or multiple Tenant system
interfaces. It doesn't matter whether
NIC is pNIC or vNIC. Note that it is not possible for a tenant system to have
both pNIC and vNICs.
"
For the last sentence, do you believe it is correct statement?
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.
[Qin]: Good point, we could add a statement to say:
"
When a tenant system only has pNICs, it is not scope of NOV3 to
Describe having native connection to the DC network using such kind of tenant
system.
"
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.
[Qin]:If we have a tenant having pNICs and vNICs at the same time,
I think tenant system should know. Unfortunately we may not have such
Tenant system.
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.
[Qin]:Agree.
Shouldn't that just be
completely transparent to the TS?
[Qin]: Disagree.
Why are you distinguishing vNIC and
pNIC in the context of a TS?
[Qin]: My point is we can leave distinguishing pNIC from vNIC beyond scope of
this document, since as you said, native connection to DC network is not scope
of this document. However for TSI, each TSI is either corresponding to a pNIC
or a vNIC.
It doesn't make sense to say one TSI is both a pNIC and a vNIC when both pNIC
and vNIC are facing hypervisor side rather than pNIC is facing tenant side
While vNIC is facing hypervisor side.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
