At Thu, 14 Aug 2014 22:24:24 +0000, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote: > 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?
Strongly agree. This effort has never really used the DCVPN terminology and it is not (IMO) a natural fit. None of our documents use it and I never hear the term used. The terminology was proposed when we were initially chartered and we should accept that it hasn't stuck. Going back to the very beginning of this effort, it has always been about Network Virtualization (emphasis on those two words). It was never about "VPNs", though clearly what is being done overlaps with VPN technology. Moreover, the key driver for this work (i.e., the reason for doing it) is the goal of virtualizing networking in a DC analagous to how server virtualization has virtualized physical machines. All the key requirements for NVO3 come from the desire to virtualize in a DC. The charter really should capture that directly. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
