You are assuming a single vendor hypervisor environment with a single management tool.
This is not a safe assumption On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thinks like tenant virtualization local VLAN assignments are already > provided today by DC orchestration system when the VM is created. I do > not think that asking NVE TOR for this information as well as other > network information of VMs is a good direction at all. > > [Xiaohu] I have the same concern. If somebody believes it's worthwhile to > pursue this direction, It would be better to prove what distinct advantages > this NVE-ToR signalling can provide compared to the orchestration system > based approach. In addition, I disgree to the claim made in this draft that > ARP is not a starting point. If the VM profile has already been provisioned > by some means, e.g., using the orchestration system, the gratuitous ARP > packet generated by the moved VM could actually be interpreted as a > notification of VM attachment event. As for the claim that ARP can not > realize VM detachment notification, IMHO, it heavily depends on what specific > NV technology is used. Take the VPLS as an example, the flooding of the > gratiutous ARP packet could be interpreted by the old NVE to which the moved > VM was previously attached as a implicit withdraw. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > Best regards, > R. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
