> 1) A name for the service (lets's pick one, is it hybrid, combined or > unified?)
We do a need a name. "combined L2/L3" service seems about right to me. [Lucy] "Combined L2/L3 service", or "L2/L3 service" > 2) To address it from a solution point of view (e.g. are packets > forwarded based on MAC or based on IP when source and dest are in the > same subnet?). Right. We need a clear definition of what this means as a service (i.e., facing the Tenant). How one implements it is a secondary discussion. Is it enough to say something like: If the packet is IP, it's treated as an L3 packet requiring L3 service. If it's a non-IP packet (except for things like ARP), it gets treated as an L2 packet to be processed using L2 service semantics. Can it be that simple? [Lucy] If the motivation of this service type is 1) no change on VM behavior 2) VM may communicate with VMs that may be in the same or different subnet. IMO: the packet from/to a VM is always Ethernet frame, and the dMAC address on the packet should be the VM MAC, and NVE has to support with ARP. I am fine with two "if". Lucy Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
