IMO, the middle box case is orthogonal to the general purpose of the draft. The requirements for a service overlay (implied by the middle box) belong in a different workgroup.
From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:37 PM To: "Black, David" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues David, Is your “hot potato” routing referring to outbound traffic going through a different DC Gateway than the inbound traffic? Then there will be issues with some middleware boxes that monitor both directions of traffic. Linda From: Black, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:06 PM To: Linda Dunbar; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [nvo3] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues Linda, > In “vm-mobility” draft, the “Optimal routing” is to avoid “triangular > routing” (or what you stated “hot potato” route). I agree on avoiding “triangular routing”, but “hot potato” routing is different from “triangular routing” and may be “optimal” depending on how “optimal” is defined. In general, “hot potato” routing refers to connectivity between two networks in which the upstream network hands off traffic to the downstream network as quickly as it can in both directions, resulting in asymmetric routes. This can and does work in practice when used and it would be incorrect to characterize it as something that should be avoided in all cases.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
