Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Quoting from my previous message: "one could imagine the NVE
imposing an underlay DSCP in IP2, e.g. to discriminate between
tenants."
No it is not the issue of coping DSCP from IP1 to IP2 especially in
tenant based QoS.
How can a DC operator apply QoS on each tenant separately when IP1 is
created by a VM that does not know the VNI?
The DSCP in the underlay IP header can be copied, imposed, translated,
etc. The NVE can decide what to put into those DSCP bits.Thus to
reiterate my previous assertion, which David Black recently quoted:
there is no QoS gap that needs to be addressed in the overlay encap layer.
By the way, I have looked at the diff between -01 and -02 of this draft
and I still see no explanation of any problem. On the other hand, I do
see an arbitrary redefinition of existing QoS mechanisms. As it stands,
this is not something that NVO3 will pursue.
Unless you can explain a problem that isn't addressed by the existing
mechanisms there is no reason to continue discussing it.
Thanks,
-Benson
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
