Hello, Thomas
Some clarifications questions below.
Have a nice day
Zu Qiang
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 3:00 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 Arch: proposed text on Multi-homing of NVEs
>
>Here is proposed text on multi-homing of NVEs
>
><section title="Multi-Homing of NVEs">
> <t>
> NVEs may be multi-homed. That is, an NVE may have more than one IP
> address associated with it on the underlay network. Multihoming
> happens in two different scenarios. First, an NVE may have
> multiple interfaces connecting it to the underlay. Each of those
> interfaces will typically have a different IP address,
[Zu Qiang] I guess MPLS shall not be excluded.
resulting
> in a specific Tenant Address (on a specific VN) being reachable
> via more than one underlay IP address. Second, a specific tenant
> system may be reachable through more than one NVE. In both cases,
> the mapping tables in NVEs need to support one-to-many mappings
> and enable a sending NVE to (at a minimum) be able to fail over
> from one IP address to another, should an NVE become unreachable
> via a specific underlay IP address.
[Zu Qiang] Is "Multi-Homing" for the purpose of failing over at NVE unreachable
only? Do we allow the failing over can be triggered by other parameters, e.g.
path priority? Or is it out of the scope?
[Zu Qiang] " should an NVE become unreachable via a specific underlay IP
address.": Do you mean " should an TS become unreachable via a specific NVE
underlay IP address." or?
> </t>
> <t>
> Multi-homing is needed to support important use cases. First, a
> bare metal server may have multiple uplink connections to either
> the same or different NVEs. Having only a single physical path to
> an upstream NVE, or indeed, having all traffic flow through a
> single NVE would be considered unacceptable in highly-resilient
> deployment scenarios that seek to avoid single points of
> failure. Morever, in today's networks, the availability of
> multiple paths would require that they be useable in an
> active-active fashion (e.g., for load balancing).
> </t>
></section>
>
>Comments?
>
>Thomas
>
>_______________________________________________
>nvo3 mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
