David, Thomas, Jon, Larry, and Marc, The revised 01 draft is much better than the 00 version. However, I still have some comments, especially to Section 6:
Section 6: NVA: I think it is necessary to describe the types of content on NVA. Is NVA only responsible for Inner-outer mapping for target within same VN? It is clear that each NVA has mapping for many VNs. But it is not clear if NVA is responsible cross VNs communication, or L3 forwarding among NVEs across the underlay network? Is NVA also responsible for providing inter-VN communication policies? E.g. For data packets from "a" (VN#1) to "b" (VN#2), if the NVE to which "a" is attached behaves as a gateway, this NVE has to terminate the MAC header of the data packets from "a", replace with a different MAC header for VN#2, and then add the NVO3 outer header. Does NVA provide the information to the NVE about VN#2's MAC header? It is very good that the draft acknowledges the current interface between Orchestration systems to Hypervisor. As a matter fact, some server vendors require our network equipment to adapt to their existing interface. (E.g. Microsoft System Center wants to use their existing interface to hypervisor as the interface to the switched based encapsulation nodes (NVE) as well). IMHO, NVA is more close to DNS than to BGP. Instead of this "Federated NVAs", why not examine today's DNS mechanism? Linda
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
