IMO: "over the network layer" is another important aspect for NVO3. We want to decouple application networking from the infrastructure network. Thus, Virtualization and Overlay are the key.
Lucy From: Eric Gray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:53 PM To: Linda Dunbar; [email protected] Cc: Lucy yong Subject: RE: [nvo3] Is there any difference between "Network Virtualization Overlay" and "Network Overlay"? Linda, I could be wrong, but I think we're confusing the "scope" of the NVO3 working group with the work that might actually get done in NVO3. First, we need to remember that NVO3 is not currently chartered to define any solution. It is chartered to "consider approaches to multi-tenancy that reside at the network layer" - which certainly includes L3VPN and likely includes aspects of L2VPN that have to do with network virtualization "at the network layer" (i.e. - over layer 3, which is how we do it). This latter point was discussed months ago. Because we defined L2VPN, Pseudowires, etc. here (in the IETF), if we now discover that there are compatibility (or other) issues with using these approaches as a network virtualization technique, we have to fix those issues here. It is certainly within the scope of the charter for NVO3 to evaluate this. That does not mean that the NVO3 working group would take a direct active role in fixing issues we find with either L2VPN or L3 VPN. As I said, fixing issues isn't in NVO3's charter in any case and fixing anything that belongs to another IETF working group is an activity that is either unlikely in NVO3, or would be explicitly delegated to NVO3 at some future time - as part of a re-chartering evolution. It is very odd to try to talk now about the "scope" of a potentially re-chartered NVO3 WG at some future date. As for MPLS, I believe that the IETF once had a broad discussion about whether or not it is a Network Layer thing. I believe the conclusion was that MPLS is closely tied to the network layer (and IP in particular). In addition to L2VPN and L3VPN as applications of MPLS, there is also Traffic Engineering. I don't believe we have yet eliminated the potential need for traffic engineered paths in virtual networks used for data-centers. And I doubt anyone is willing to consider using IP explicit routing to accomplish this, in the even that it is needed. If we limit the scope of what NVO3 needs to consider to strictly IP encapsulation we may be dodging many the problems we've talked about in NVO3. In many cases, that might be okay, but we don't know that at the moment... -- Eric From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:10 PM To: Lucy yong; Eric Gray; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); Thomas Narten; [email protected]; Black, David; Murari Sridharan; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] Is there any difference between "Network Virtualization Overlay" and "Network Overlay"? Importance: High Snip... . When MPLS is not available, using mpls in GRE encapsulation, L2VPN/L3VPN can be over an IP network, which fits in the NVO3 scope. [Linda] That is exactly what I want to say: i.e. L2VPN/L3VPN achieved via IP encapsulation (GRE, VxLAN, etc) is in the scope of NVO3. The L2VPN/L3VPN achieved via MPLS encapsulation fits in the scope of L2VPN WG and L3VPN WG respectively. Linda
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
