The MACs and VLANs fields in VDP tlv can be null if they are not necessary to be transferred from End device to NVE. The VSI ID information can be used to find out which VN the VM belongs to. From this point of view, I don't think that we need a new protocol for L3.
To support VN attach/detach on L3VPN discussed in the thread, IMHO, it's easy to find suitable information or easily add new to /delete unnecessary field from VDP. But there is still something to consider while using VDP in L3VPN case, because VDP is defined to be running on ECP(Edge Control Protocol), which is intended to operate between two peers over an IEEE802.1LAN. ECP has a designated Ether-type. ECP can be used to transmit various Upper Layer protocol, e.g. VDP and PE CSP(IEEE 802.1BR), and can carry more than one TLVs in one ECPDU. In the case, where TES and NVE are on different physical entities, and using L2. NVE receives ECP, decap the VDP TLV and send to upper layer for processing. A L-ACK is sent to TES(or say End Device) before next ECPDU can be sent from TES. If in the case where TES and NVE are on different physical entities, and using L3 protocol, there are two ways that we can do: 1) ECP is supported by router NVE, which I think is not difficult. 2) another protocol is designated to carry VDP, correspondingly Hypervisor must support this protocol, e.g. BGP Best Regards Gu Yingjie -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 NAPIERALA, MARIA H 发送时间: 2012年7月12日 乐乐1:43 收件人: Paul Unbehagen 抄送: Thomas Narten; Luyuan Fang (lufang); [email protected] 主题: Re: [nvo3] TES-NVE attach/detach protocol security (mobility-issues draft) My main point was that VDP is not needed in a layer 3 solution since MACs and VLANs are irrelevant to layer 3. Dealing with a protocol which was defined for interoperability with bridging would be unnecessary complication to a layer 3 solution. Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Unbehagen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:18 PM > To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H > Cc: Thomas Narten; Luyuan Fang (lufang); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] TES-NVE attach/detach protocol security (mobility- > issues draft) > > VDP isn't that complicated of a protocol. It was designed to > autoconnect VMs to the proper VLAN and any tenant profile required by > involving communication to a management system which then configures > the proper tenant parameters in the ToR/EoR in a automated way. This > is all transparent to the routing layer as the IP and default gateway > and vlan assignment take care of all that automatically. > > I believe it's already in a few server vendors products already as I > saw prototypes of it a couple years ago. > > -- > Paul Unbehagen > > > On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:20 AM, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Also VDP is between the Hypervisor and NVE. Thus, it may still be > >> needed, even if the service provided to the TES is L3 only. > > > > In a layer 3 solution (whether encapsulation starts at the hypervisor > or on a switch outside of the hypervisor) there is no need to run a > complicated (IEEE) protocol such as VDP. VDP was invented to > interoperate a virtual server with an external layer 2 switch/bridge. > > A layer 3 solution can use much simpler IP-based protocol (developed > in IETF) such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). > > > > Maria > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
