Hi Benson, What you say below seems important enough the articulate in the charter. Namely, that NVO3 is not tasked with developing DCVPN solutions based on BGP and MPLS, which will be handled by a different WG.
I'm wondering if the term "DCVPN" is confusing enough to not use it. I know it was in the original NVO3 charter, but I always felt it was there to keep the door open for L2VPN/L3VPN based solutions. I don't believe we use "DCVPN" very much in the current WG documents. We mainly use the term Virtual Network (VN). Should we use VN in the charter instead? Thanks, Larry From: Benson Schliesser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:57 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion Hi, Linda. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The proposed charter is so general that there is not much to pick on. Yes, you have done a great job drafting it. I'm not sure if you're serious, or teasing me / being sarcastic, but either way I guess it puts a smile on my face. ;) So the NVO3 is now DCVPN? Since the underlay is IP, will it become another L3VPN? Somebody else asked me a similar question privately, so I want to make sure it's clear... The term "NVO3" refers to a working group. The term "DCVPN" refers to the category of solutions for providing multi-tenancy, etc in a DC environment. There are possibly many technical approaches to designing a DCVPN. Some of those approaches might be based on protocols like BGP, MPLS, etc, which are developed in other WGs. As proposed in the new charter, NVO3 does not own the scope / charter for all work on DCVPNs. Rather, the proposed NVO3 charter is meant to narrow our focus to a specific type of DCVPN: overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane. That being said, is that not clear from the text that we proposed? Is there some specific way that it could be improved? Cheers, -Benson
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
