Hi Anoop,

See my responses inline, marked with LK>.

Thanks, Larry

From: Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:52 PM
To: NVO3 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00


This looks like a reasonable starting point.

But I have some comments...

The document seems to focus only on the case where the TS to NVE is 
accomplished using L2 connectivity.  Is there a reason it chooses to exclude L3 
connectivity?  If so, what is the rationale for that?  It would be good to 
document that.

LK> From my perspective, L2 connectivity works well (for either L2 service or 
L3 service) because all data center switches (and Hypervisor virtual switches) 
are already VLAN enabled, so L2 has a built in way to keep tenant traffic 
separate between the End Devices and the external NVE.  If the connectivity to 
an external NVE were L3, there would need to be something to differentiate each 
tenant's traffic (e.g. some kind of encapsulation)…but since one of the big 
reasons for using an external NVE is to offload the encap/decap from software 
on a Hypervisor to external hardware, that would completely defeat the purpose.

Second, it talks about the case where a TS forwards using multiple MAC 
addresses and requires the registration of all of the MAC addresses.  But what 
about the case where the TS is a transparent appliance?  In that case, it may 
not have MAC addresses to register and may operate simply by flipping the VLAN 
ID.

LK> A VM running as a transparent bridge was indeed one of the use cases I had 
in mind for a TS with multiple MAC addresses.  From the perspective of the L2 
NVE, it has no idea whether the MAC address is actually "owned" by a 
transparent bridge, or whether it is simply emitting the frames as it bridges 
them.  Note that the TS does not actually do the registering with the external 
NVE.  The End Device housing the TS (e.g. Hypervisor) does the registering.  
For example, when a VM emits a frame with a previously unseen source MAC, the 
Hypervisor virtual switch would detect it and then register the new address.

Finally, being a requirements document, it shouldn't discuss solution, yet it 
gets into defining state machines and provides the exemplary details of VDP 
(but no details for any of the other solutions).

LK> This came from one of the merged drafts.  Some felt is was a very 
informative example to look at.  We are not trying to imply it is the solution, 
which is why it is in a Appendix and label "Illustrative".

Anoop


-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On 
Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:23 AM
To: NVO3
Subject: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00

This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs determine if there is 
consensus to adopt draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00 as an PWE3 working 
group draft.

The draft can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00.txt

Please read the draft and indicate to the list if you support adoption, or if 
you do not support adoption (giving reasons).

Please note that this is only a call for adoption. There needs to be consensus 
that this draft is a good basis for the work, but it does not need 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 PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or 
contributor, then please explicitly respond regarding IPR only if you are aware 
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for adoption will close in two weeks time, on Friday 6th June.

Matthew and Benson

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to