Hello, Larry
I have some clarification questions on section 3 of this draft.
- Section 3.3: the text is a little bit confused. Please clarify it.
1) At VN connect/disconnect, the attached/detached NVE may be notified by
the hypervisor. Then the NVE will inform the NVA, where the NVA is going to
update the remote NVEs with a new address mapping table.
2) Or the NVA may learn the VN connect/disconnect from somewhere (e.g.
orchestration). Then it will notify the NVE where the VN was attached/detached
and update the remote NVEs with a new address mapping table.
3) Or both 1) and 2) are allowed?
- Because of my confusion from the reading of section 3.3, it may be
good to make it more clear in section 3.1 and 3.2 on which direction the
notification is sent. For instance, "A protocol is needed for the NVA to
provide this inner to outer mapping and VN Context to each NVE that requires it
and keep the mapping updated in a timely manner."
- Section 3.4: I agree that VN name into VN ID mapping may be needed.
However, we may need to allow different implementations. For instance, one can
have this mapping in NVA only and use VN ID in all interfaces. Therefore,
supporting this mapping in NVA-NVE protocol shall be optional.
Have a nice day
Zu Qiang
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
