Hi Femi, [Lucy] 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? [Lucy] I see your concern. We can point out that these use cases represent DC service provider interests and vision for their cloud services. Some use cases are relative easy to be implemented technically; and some may be challenges and require a new technology to enable that. Section 3.1: Perhaps add a better definition of vGW [Lucy] ack. Will do in next version. [Femi]: OK. 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? [Lucy] Section 4.1 states two reasons for the needs of supporting multiple technologies in a DC. One is for DC migration time; another is no all applications to be good to run on virtual machines. This is not that DC Operators like to use multiple technologies, it is that they have to use them for these reasons. IMO: that is clear enough. Thanks, Lucy 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. Regards, Femi Thanks, Lucy Regards, Femi From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:14 AM To: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> Subject: [nvo3] WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09 This email begins a two week working group last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09.txt. 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. Best regards Matthew and Sam
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
