On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1. Since TS is the end of the network, flow (e.g, 5 tuple) based VN > > forwarding would bring much network flexibility. The L2/L3 VN service is > > the traditional service, but I believe the VN should have the capability > to > > provide a flow based forwarding service. > > I'm not at all sure what it would mean for the VN itself (that is > NVO3) to provide "flow based forwarding service". What did you have in > mind? What benefits would that have? > [Lizhong] flow based forwarding will not have influence to the underlay, but the interface between NVE and NVA needs to exchange the flow entry, not L2/L3 forwarding entry. There would be some scenario for flow based forwarding, e.g, firewall needs to forward different flow to different VM. The benefits is more finely control of the flow distribution. > > In my mind, how traffic is forwarded by the underlay network is > entirely the business of the underlay. Flow based forwarding would be > fine, if desirable. But, that would be completely orthogonal to NVO3 > and the virtual network itself. I don't see right off the need for > NVO3 itself to be involved in this. > > Thomas > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
