Hi Benson, Linda was supposed to have a slot during last interim conference call "to show substantial content in this draft with regard to VM mobility in DC that are not in the NVO3 problem statement". Linda didn't do this, so I'm not sure why this document is being put up for Last Call.
I just read through the document again after a long long time and came away scratching my head about its value. I have written down some of my impressions below as I read it, but in summary I'm not convinced that this should be published. It seems to spend a lot of time defining terminology (e.g. Trivial vs non-trival L2 Physical domain) that in the end doesn't seem to have anything to do with an overlay virtual network. I would still like to see Linda's presentation on the "substantial content" that I missed in my reading. - Larry The document discusses the seamless migration of VMs between two Data Centers. Based on the recent charter discussions, the scope of NVO3 seems to be limited to within a single DC. In that case should discussion of inter-DC VM mobility be removed? The document uses the term CUG (Closed User Group) extensively. The problem statement and framework use the term VN (Virtual Network). The framework mentions CUG by saying "A VN is also known as a Closed User Group (CUG)." Given this, I think this document should use the consistent term, VN in placed of CUG. Section 3.1 seems to be equating CUGs to VLANs in an L2 physical domain. I'm not sure what this has to do with NVO3 Overlay VNs. It makes "the assumption that within a given L2 physical domain VLANs are used to identify individual L2-based CUGs". Why? Section 3.3 continues this assumption that an L2 CUG is bounded by an L2 physical domain by saying that when a VM moves to a new L2 physical domain "the new L2 physical domain must become interconnected with the other L2 physical domain". Since NVO3 is all about creating an overlay over IP, I don't understand why one would need to extend VLANs from one L2 physical domain to another providing a "Layer 2 Extension". The purpose of using NVO3 overlays is to avoid having to extend L2 physical domains. Section 3.4 spends most if its time discussing what "Optimal IP Routing" means, only to go on to say "The ability to deliver optimal routing (as defined above) in the presence of stateful devices is outside the scope of this document.". Why bother spending time to define something which is out of scope? Section 3.5 discusses "policies that control connectivity between a given VM and its peers", which I understand based on the definition of CUG, to be the VN itself. It then seems to go on to say that these policies (I.e. the VN) must not change whether the VM moves between two different L2 physical domains or stays within the same L2 physical domain. Isn't this section just a complicated way of stating that when a VM moves, it should remain connected to the same VN it was originally connected to? Isn't that trivial and obvious? On 9/12/14 2:42 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear NVO3 Contributors - > >This message is to initiate a Working Group Last Call for Comments on >draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues. The chairs believe there is consensus >to submit this draft to the IESG for publication. Please review it and >provide feedback on the mailing list by 19-Sep-2014. > >As a reminder, this is not an opportunity to vote. Please do not post >messages that simply indicate support. Rather, substantial comments and >feedback is encouraged. > >For your convenient reference, the latest version of the draft can be >found at >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03. > >Thanks, >-Benson & Matthew > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
