Please see inline….
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:38 PM
To: Olufemi Komolafe <okomo...@brocade.com>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
<matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; NVO3 <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09
Thank you for the comment. Please see inline below.
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olufemi Komolafe
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 5:18 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); NVO3
Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09
I think the draft is OK but I’ve got a few comments below:
Section 1: Why are these the use cases considered? I think a better
justification of why these use cases are considered representative or even
significant will enhance the draft.
[Lucy] Section 1 is introduction that highlight NVO3 motivation and its enabled
applications. The rest of sections describes some use cases and justification.
[Femi]: Yeah, I understand your point but I was wondering if you can state why
you picked these particular use cases and scenarios. i.e. do you consider
these to be the most likely use cases? Or the most complex/interesting use
cases? If so, why?
Section 3.1: Perhaps add a better definition of vGW
[Lucy] ack. Will do in next version.
Section 4: Is this statement 100% accurate: "Operators no longer need to worry
about the constraints of the DC physical network configuration when creating
VMs and configuring a virtual network."?
[Lucy] This is a goal at least. When DC service provider offers IaaS to
customers and allows a customer to create its own cloud on DC service provider
infrastructure, DC provider zero touch provisioning is the goal, and no DC
physical network configuration change is a “MUST” to achieve this goal.
[Femi]: Fair enough.
Section 4.1: This section is potentially very interesting and perhaps should be
fleshed out some more; some of the issues arising from interworking between
different technologies are interesting and perhaps worthy of further
discussion. However, there are some suggestions that some DCs are highly
homogenised in terms of deployed hardware and technology so perhaps also
mention this possibility?
[Lucy] What would you like to add here?
[Femi]: Perhaps expand the discussion on the VXLAN/NVGRE/VLAN interworking
example to highlight some of the issues/benefits when different NVO3 overlays
are used within the same DC? And state how likely you think such use cases are
likely to be?
Section 4:3: "DC Provider operators"? In fact, draft uses both "DC provider" or
"DC operator" throughout. Is there a difference? If so, perhaps state the
difference. If not, perhaps pick one and use it consistently in the draft?
[Lucy] Thanks to point out this. DC Provider means that a company offers cloud
services to consumers. DC operators are roles who are responsible to construct
and manage cloud service instances in their life-cycle and manage the
infrastructure for running these applications . One is from consumer
perspective, another is from DC and service operation perspective. Any service
provider company has these two aspects: easy for customer to get a service and
easy for operator to manage the service. Make a sense? If yes, I will make it
clear in next version.
[Femi]: Makes sense; thanks for clarifying.
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:14 AM
To: NVO3 <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>>
Subject: [nvo3] WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09
This email begins a two week working group last call for
Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group list.
If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments and
believe it is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, please also
indicate so to the WG email list.
This working group last call will close on Tuesday 20th September 2016.
Matthew and Sam
nvo3 mailing list