The framework mentioned two approaches (see below):
In order to get reachability information, NVEs may exchange
information directly between themselves via a protocol. In this
Lasserre, et al. Expires May 12, 2014 [Page 9]
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-04#page-10>
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization November
2013
case, a control plane module resides in every NVE. This is how
routing control plane modules are implemented in routers for
instance.
It is also possible for NVEs to communicate with an external Network
Virtualization Authority (NVA) to obtain reachability and forwarding
information. In this case, a protocol is used between NVEs and
NVA(s) to exchange information. OpenFlow [OF] is one example of such
a protocol.
Now the arch draft mentioned only the NVE-NVA interaction approach. Does it
mean the information contained in the framework draft is stale?
Xiaohu
发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Yves Hertoghs
(yhertogh)
发送时间: 2013年11月15日 2:15
收件人: Lucy yong; Xuxiaohu; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]
主题: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for
draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt
I disagree with the need for an NVE to NVE control plane. That doesn't mean
that you can't colocate a portion of the distributed NVA with every NVE, which
is the model that e.g. BGP/L3VPN or ISIS/TRILL uses.
Yves
From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday 14 November 2013 16:59
To: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for
draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt
I share my view.
The current architecture document is more focusing on NVE-NVA interface and
assumes that NVA is able to obtain all VN and/or address mapping information’s
that an NVE needs. That does implicitly indicate that no control plane protocol
is needed between NVEs. (NVE-NVE data plane protocol is still needed). From
the architecture perspective, if it allows the control plane protocol exist
both between NVE-NVA and NVE-NVE, it may lead very complex solution and many
operation issue; it has to resolve which information NVE should trust or use,
i.e. from NVA or from NVE.
Weather this means excluding TRILL or SPB, it is debatable. The current charter
clearly states that NVO3 targets network virtualization over IP network. Beyond
this point, TRILL has directory based solution, which fits into NVE-NVA
architecture. SPB also have SPB-EVPN solution that also aligns with NVE-NVA
architecture.
IMO: NVE-NVA based control plane architecture and NVE-NVE based control plane
architecture are both possible for NVO3, but not the combined architecture. As
you said, it is true that NVE-NVE based architecture is useful in some small
applications. Since TRILL and SBP already address it, NVO3 should only focus
on the NVE-NVA based architecture. One of NVO3 goal is the scalability.
Lucy
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:58 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [nvo3] 答复: Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for
draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt
Hi all,
In the current arch draft, there is no mention of NVE-NVE protocol. Does it
mean that there is no need for direct exchange of VN and/or address mapping
information between NVEs? If so, Does it mean that the control plane mechanisms
used by TRILL or SPB which depend on the NVE-NVE interaction are not suitable
for multi-tenant data center networks anymore, leaving aside whether the
underlay is IP or not.
IMHO, the NVE-NVE protocol is still useful in some small and medium sized
multi-tenant data center networks. AFAIK, most tenants within public cloud data
centers are small and medium sized enterprises which usually don’t need a lot
of VMs. That means the number of NVEs for most VNs would not be very large
especially in the case where the NVE is deployed at physical switches, rather
than hypervisors/servers. In this case, the VN membership can be discovered via
IGP flooding and the address mapping information of a given VN could be
directly exchanged among NVEs of that VN, without a need for a dedicated NVA.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
发件人:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] 代表Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
发送时间: 2013年11月13日 21:58
收件人:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
主题: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt
This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs judge if there is
consensus to adopt draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt as an NVO3 working group
draft.
Please respond to this email on the list with 'support' or 'do not support'.
Please also send any comments on the draft to the NVO3 list.
Please consider whether this draft takes the right basic approach, and is a
good basis for the work going forward (and potential future rechartering). It
does not have to be perfect at this stage.
Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to
this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this
email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be
adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor.
If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR
that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
This poll closes on Friday 29th November 2013.
Regards
Matthew and Benson
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
