Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-
scheme-00.txt
David,
Ok. Fair enough. Any transient, ephemeral and hardware-specific state does
not go with it. But, the question comes back, how much of that state is
relevant
-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-
scheme-00.txt
David,
Ok. Fair enough. Any transient, ephemeral and hardware-specific state
does
not go with it. But, the question comes back, how much of that state is
relevant for the forwarding plane in the network. May be the
applications
will rebuild that state
(sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:27 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for
draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility- scheme-00.txt
David,
Ok. Fair enough. Any transient, ephemeral and hardware-specific state
-Original Message-
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:27 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-
scheme-00.txt
David,
Ok. Fair enough. Any transient
: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for
draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
Tom,
Are you saying that the term “VM” should only be described in motivation and
the proposed scheme should work for address mobility enabled by any methods?
Linda
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for
draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
I might change “mobility” to migration to avoid possible confusion with
mobile IP and drop the “framework” word as this draft is laying out
specific solutions.
Thanks,
--David
From: Reith, Lothar
= 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
, October 07, 2014 1:08 PM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); sarik...@ieee.org; nvo3@ietf.org; Black, David;
Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for
draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
Hi Tom.
Migration may be a better term than mobility, but the other part
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 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
:27 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-
scheme-00.txt
David,
Ok. Fair enough. Any transient, ephemeral and hardware-specific state does
not go with it. But, the question comes back, how much of that state
I agree with Tom David that this draft only describes the solutions to
address the issues associated with hosts' (VMs') addresses floating across
multiple NVEs or PODs, but not cover the state aspects (on middleware boxes) of
the VM mobility.
What do people think of NVO3 Address Mobility
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Linda Dunbar linda.dun...@huawei.com
wrote:
I agree with Tom David that this draft only describes the solutions to
address the issues associated with hosts' (VMs') addresses floating across
multiple NVEs or PODs, but not cover the state aspects (on middleware
for
draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
Tom,
Are you saying that the term “VM” should only be described in motivation and
the proposed scheme should work for address mobility enabled by any methods?
Linda
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, October
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Linda Dunbar linda.dun...@huawei.com wrote:
Tom,
Are you saying that the term “VM” should only be described in motivation and
the proposed scheme should work for address mobility enabled by any methods?
Yes, that is my hope, with the constraint that this
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Tom Herbert therb...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Linda Dunbar linda.dun...@huawei.com wrote:
Tom,
Are you saying that the term “VM” should only be described in motivation and
the proposed scheme should work for address mobility enabled by
20 matches
Mail list logo
