Hi Lothar,

 

Please see my comment below marked as "FM".

 

Thanks,

 

Florian


>>> "Reith, Lothar" <[email protected]> 22.04.13 10.36 Uhr >>>





>Heureka, 

 

>I now know what the vertice is.

 

>In the case where the TSI is the interface of a VM, it is a collapsed
virtual yellow cable, the thing that Bob Metcalfe called “the Ether” in
his original 40 >year old drawing.

 

>And both the VAP as well as the TSI are Interfaces to the “Ether”. And
they are both of point nature.s

 

>Is there any  other case in scope of NVO3, where the TSI is not an
interface of a VM?

>The current definition of Tenant System may have mislead me to believe
so.

 

FM> Yes, a VM is only one example of a Tenant System (TS). The TS can
also be a physical system like a physical server, router, switch,
firewall, load-balancer etc.

 

>Lothar

 



Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von
Reith, Lothar
Gesendet: Montag, 22. April 2013 10:07
An: Florian Mahr
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [nvo3] Antw: Re: NVO3 Terminology changes



 

Hi Florian,

 

thanks for this interpretation.

 

I now understand that I may indeed have been confused, and that the TSI
is not b).

 

I am still not quite clear, if it’s a) or c) though. 

 

For me, that is a very fundamental conceptual difference – like for
Euklid the difference between a point and a line that looks like a
point, because it is a collapsed line.

 

My take is, that you tend for a) – correct?  That means that the TSI
corresponds to the VAP in a 1 to 1 relation (because they are 2 points
connected to each other by said implicit point to point relation, which
represents the vertice in the graph, however, the 2 points are the
endpoints of a collapsed line, and the line (the vertice between the
point “VAP” and the point “TSI”  is not present in the data model.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Lothar

 

 

 

 

 



Von: Florian Mahr [mailto:[email protected]] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. April 2013 20:34
An: Reith, Lothar
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Antw: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes



 



Hi Lothar,



 



I agree with you that the discussion that is going on about the term TSI
is a little bit confusing.



 



In my opinion, it is best to think about the TSI in regard to the
containment tree proposed in draft-kreeger-nvo3-hypervisor-nve-cp-01.



In its simplest case the containment tree might look like this: TSI --
VN -- MAC -- IP.



Therefore, a TSI is nothing more than a conceptual interface which
connects a Tenant System (TS) to a Virtual Network Instance (VNI).



I personally like the new term TSI more than the old one (VNIC), because
it does not make any assumption about the implementation of the
interface,



i.e. the TSI can be for example a logical NIC or a physical NIC, and it
can be VLAN-tagged or untagged.



If I understand the current NVE reference model correctly, there is a
one-to-one relationship between the TSI on the TS side and the VAP on



the NVE side, i.e. each TSI is logically associated with exactly one
VAP.



 



I do not think it is a good idea to call the TSI an "Overlay network
interface", because the TSI is not directly involved in creating the
overlay



network. This is the job of the NVE which conceptually consists of one
or more VNIs and the Overlay Module.



 



Thanks,



Florian



 



 


>>> "Reith, Lothar" <[email protected]> 21.04.13 13.44 Uhr >>>

Given that the term TSI lead to a long discussion and perhaps even
confusion, I like to offer some abstraction help.

 

 Please consider any network can be drawn as a graph with vertices and
points representing the endpoints of the vertices.

 

Agreed?

 

If you agree, please consider which of the 3 options the TSI represents:

 

a)      The point in theclosest to the tenant system and one in the tenant 
system that is
closest to the network)

 

Do all agree that it is b)  ?

 

If yes, do you agree that we may be better of in renaming Tenant System
Interface as  “Overlay network interface”?

 

Or did I get something totally wrong?

 

Lothar


Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von
Lizhong Jin
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. April 2013 19:05
An: [email protected]; Lawrence Kreeger
Betreff: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes


 





Hi Larry,



I wonder if point C or D is feasible in implementation. In my
understanding, the TSI must be a virtual port which could be associated
with the special VN, and transmit/receive packets from tenant system
(the virtual port terminology is used in many switch chip). If we use
one IP address, we could not treat it as a virtual port. One simple
example, if packet with broadcast IP address received, will this packet
be send to IP_a and IP_b on the same vNIC?



 



I don't think we need to define such kind of detail for TSI. The TSI
definition is implementation related. I could define the TSI with a VLAN
(piont B in your figure), or define TSI with a priority queue within one
vNIC.



 



BTW, I like the name TSI, and remove NIC/vNIC/pNIC. pNIC is closely
related with data transfer between network and host stack, and it is
usually a controller without MAC&PHY. vNIC is a driver function or
virtual function(defined by SR-IOV). A TSI could also be a vNIC teaming
interface by teaming driver. So "interface" is a appropriate name to
define a Tx/Rx channel between tenant system and VN.



 



Regards



Lizhong



 



 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]>
To: Qin Wu <[email protected]>, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]>,
"Black, David" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Reith, Lothar"
<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:55:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Terminology changes



Hi Qin,



 



A VM is one possible implementation of a Tenant System. I have not seen
anyone suggesting that a Tenant System get more granular than that.  



 



Regarding what defines a TSI, someone could choose any branch in the
tree below to define as the TSI.  I was assuming that the TSI would be
at point A below in the tree.  However, point B would correspond the the
VAP.  Pat had mentioned having the TSI at point D.  I think if we were
to define the TSI to be either point C or point D, then it would depend
on the service being given (L2 or L3).  I would prefer it to be at point
A or B.



 




         VNIC-+-VN-+-MAC-+-IP



           ^  |    |     +-IP ...



           |  |    |



           |  |    +-MAC-+-IP



           |  |          +-IP ...



           |  |



           |  +-VN-+-MAC-+-IP



           |     ^ |     +-IP ...



           |     | |



           |     | +-MAC-+-IP



           |     |    ^  +-IP ...



           |     |    |     ^



           |     |    |     |



           A     B    C     D




 



 - Larry



 
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to