Hi,
I will copy the definition of VN from http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-09.txt Virtual Network (VN): A VN is a logical abstraction of a physical network that provides L2 or L3 network services to a set of Tenant Systems. A VN is also known as a Closed User Group (CUG). I think the difference between VN and VPN is the context. For example, I have not come across a definition of VPN in context of abstraction. I would agree to use VN instead of VPN. This will also be consistent with the terminology in other drafts. Regards, Osama From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:17 PM To: Larry Kreeger (kreeger); Benson Schliesser; Linda Dunbar Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion Hi Larry, IMO, DCVPN is just a particular VPN which is deployed in the DC environment and may have some special requirements on the VPN technologies. The perception that the MPLS-based VPN technology should only be used over the WAN or the Internet is mistaken and therefore should be corrected. Could you please explain the technical reasons why the MPLS-based VPN technologies could not be deployed within the DC? Could you please explain why the MPLS-over-IP based encapsulations could not be used within the DC? Best regards, Xiaohu From: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:57 AM To: Xuxiaohu; Benson Schliesser; Linda Dunbar Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion Hi Xiaohu, An NVO3 VN is not an IPSec VPN nor an SSL VPN either. All the types of VPNs you mention are typically used over the WAN/Internet and/or involve encryption for privacy of the internet. I use a VPN to connect into my company from my home. The company end of the VPN is probably located in a data center. Does that make it a DCVPN? - Larry From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:52 PM To: Larry Kreeger <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, Benson Schliesser <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 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 Larry, The term VPN is a generic term which could be interpreted as IPsec VPN, SSL VPN and MPLS-based VPN etc. If some people have a mistaken perception of the term VPN, their mistaken perception should be corrected. Best regards, Xiaohu From: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:08 AM To: Xuxiaohu; Benson Schliesser; Linda Dunbar Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion Hi Xiaohu, In practice, there really isn't much difference in the services of a VN vs a VPN. My concern is just the perception of what the term VPN already means in the industry. I don't think we want people to have preconceived notions about what a DCVPN is, e.g. an MPLS VPN running within a DC. - Larry From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:21 PM To: Larry Kreeger <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, Benson Schliesser <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 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 Larry, Could you please explain to us what's the real difference between VPN and VN? Best regards, Xiaohu From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Kreeger (kreeger) Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 6:24 AM To: Benson Schliesser; Linda Dunbar Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
