Hi Linda, >> Therefore, I think it is better to have a flag indicating if the VNs are >> listed individually, Upper/Lower ranges, or bit mapped. >> >I wouldn't use a flag for that, it's probably cleaner to define >another TLV type that gives a list of VNIDs. Either the list or >bit-map can be used interchangeably.
I also think separate TLVs should be specified. Thus we will have three types of TLV to encode the VNID list: (1) VNIDs listed individually; (2) Ranges with Upper/Lower bounds; (3) One or *multiple* bit-maps of VNIDs. Since it's still possible that a single TLV is too large by using any of the TLVs so fragmentation should be specified as well. Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 6:27 AM >To: Linda Dunbar >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] is it resonsable that >draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution-01 suggests NVE using bit-map to >represent its supported VNs? > >On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >wrote: >> When a NVE is initialized or re-started, it uses Virtual Network scoped >> instances of the IS-IS to announce all the Virtual Networks in which it is >> participating. >> >> >> >> The current draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution-01 suggests using >> the bit map to represent the supported VNs. >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> | Type | (1 byte) >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> | Length | (1 byte) >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> | RESV | Start VN ID | (2 bytes) >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> | VNID bit-map.... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> Figure 2. Enabled-VN TLV >> >Hi Linda, > >First a couple of meta comments on the draft: > >- Sizes of type and lengths in TLVs are inconsistent (some 16 bits, >some 32 bits). It might be just as well to make all of them 16 bits. >- For the above, I think the Start VNID field is 4 bytes not 2 bytes. >- Please avoid implicitly setting constraints on the data plane in the >definition of control plane. For instance, I've already made arguments >that VN ID might be thirty-two bits, and there's little cost to >defining thirty-two bit VN IDs in the control plane. > >> >> >> >> >> For 24-bits VN ID, there could be 16million VNs. Even with the “Start VN ID” >> listed, the number of bytes for the bitmap can be very large. >> >> >> >> Therefore, I think it is better to have a flag indicating if the VNs are >> listed individually, Upper/Lower ranges, or bit mapped. >> >I wouldn't use a flag for that, it's probably cleaner to define >another TLV type that gives a list of VNIDs. Either the list or >bit-map can be used interchangeably. > >Tom > >> >> >> Any other suggestions? >> >> >> >> Linda >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
