Hi,
As the work to charter BESS progresses (the charter
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bess/charter/ has been put out for community
review by the IESG). It is time to set up the mailing list for BESS.
As may be expected, this will be b...@ietf.org subscribed via
Maybe “NVO tenant system mobility solution”?
Lucy
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Reith, Lothar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:51 AM
To: David Allan I; Linda Dunbar; Tom Herbert
Cc: Black, David; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for
Yes, Andy pointed out that the solutions are normative, not simply informative,
so “my bad” for suggesting framework in the first place…
Cheers
Dave
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
David,
Replies are inserted below:
From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.al...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:52 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; Tom Herbert
Cc: Black, David; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Solutions for resolving access domain's VLAN-ID conflict ( was
name poll for
= Now, if I replace VM with mobile node, that's layer-3
mobility and we have few solution options there…
No. Let's please not go here. As David pointed out in a different
thread, NVO3 is about VM *migration*.
Mobile IP is a very different beast built on a number of fundamentally
different
Hi Tom.
Migration may be a better term than mobility, but the other part of
the phrasing, node, was to encompass non-VM uses cases of network
virtualization migration in DC-- like job migration, container
migration. Is nvo3 explicitly about VM migration so that these
other cases are out of
Linux Container performs the same task as a hypervisor, i.e. enabling multiple
isolated hosts (or VMs) running on a single physical machine. Why need a
separate discussion for Linux Container?
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi Linda.
Linux Container performs the same task as a hypervisor, i.e. enabling
multiple isolated hosts (or VMs) running on a single physical
machine. Why need a separate discussion for Linux Container?
Who is asking for a separate discussion?
I was just clarifying that Linux containers and
Hi Pankaj,
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Pankaj Garg garg.pan...@microsoft.com
wrote:
What is the reason for restricting the charter to only adopt one protocol
for control plane, while allowing one or more protocols for data plane
encapsulation?
There are already other ways (BGP-based,
Hi Thomas,
No. Let's please not go here.
No .. no. My comment is not intended to argue against inventing a new
approach; I'm not in the way. But, if we do not discuss and show a
reasonable technical argument as why an option needs to be ruled out, I
suspect we will end with the exact same
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
sgund...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Thomas,
No. Let's please not go here.
No .. no. My comment is not intended to argue against inventing a new
approach; I'm not in the way. But, if we do not discuss and show a
reasonable technical
On 10/7/14 8:32 PM, Tom Herbert therb...@google.com wrote:
You've reverted to posing the networking virtualization problem in
terms of virtual machines which leads to a use case specific
solution-- this is exactly the reason I suggested to not use the term.
The general problem is not (virtual)
Sri,
On 10/7/14 8:32 PM, Tom Herbert therb...@google.com wrote:
You've reverted to posing the networking virtualization problem in
terms of virtual machines which leads to a use case specific
solution-- this is exactly the reason I suggested to not use the term.
The general problem is not
The common element in both cases is the network address movement -
That's precisely the IP Mobility protocols that are out there are designed
for. IP address state is moved and we make the network aware of that.
Fair enough, but they are not the only to move IP addresses.
I'm not
14 matches
Mail list logo
