Hi Dale, On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-10, there is > > Req-12: The protocol MUST be able to run over L2 links between the > End Device and its External NVE. > > This seems to envision a scenario where the networking services provided > to the Tenant Systems are layer 2 (virtualized Ethernet) and it's > expected that the trunk between the tVNE and the nVNE will be at layer > 2.
It means that if you happen to have layer 2 links there, the protocol has to be able to run over them. > However, logically, the situation seems to be much more general than > that. It looks like it's quite possible to do the tVNE/nVNE trunking at > layer 3. It also allows provisioning of VN services to the TS at > multiple layers. For instance, if the TS VM is a "container", it's > quite possible that the TS receives only layer 3 services. And for a > more service-oriented architecture, the TS network attachment may be at > layer 4 or higher. > > None of these possibilities seem to affect the structure of the > tVNE/nVNE protocol, other than that the address families of the network > identifiers passed in the protocol vary. (These are the identifiers in > both the "overlay" family, the service provided to the TS, and in the > "underlay" family, the trunking connection.) It's likely that a reasonable protocol could be tweaked in various ways to run over a wide variety of communications services. > So it seems to me that we could gain considerable generality at little > cost by changing Req-12 to something like: > > Req-12a: The protocol MUST be configurable to run over links of any > particular networking protocol between the End Device and its > External NVE. > > Req-12b: The protocol MUST be configurable to support network > services at any particular layer to Tenant Systems. I think mandatory requirements should be minimal, not aspirational. A mandatory requirement to run over any protocol at any level seems truly vast, undefined, and unreasonable. I guess if I say I want it to run over layer 1 DTMF signaling, how to do that would have to be included in the protocol specification. > In practice, this only requires that addresses contained in the protocol > are tagged with address families, or that the configuration of the > protocol instance is understood to include the address family > information. Keeping mandatory requirements to the minimum in no way means they cannot or will not be exceeded. I would expect the consensus to support a protocol that ran over the reasonably useful and anticipatable link types. But I see no reason to change this mandatory requirement. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Dale _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
