+1 If it is just VN, then from a terminology standpoint this also covers DC VN/Cloud extension to customer LAN. It also captures the requirements of DC VN to DC Edge device, etc.
If it is called DCVPN, from a terminology standpoint, it is DC only and VPN only. Limiting to this will orphan a large number of use cases including some which are already covered in the architecture/framework documents. A. On 15/08/14 19:38, Thomas Narten wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
