Is anybody going to care if the WG makes a choice? People are out there
deploying stuff.
I don't think the WG should make a choice. I think it should confine itself to
the charter.
jak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Lucy yong
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:38 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Is it too earlier to make a choice from
> L2 and L3-based NV solutions?
>
> Hence, I believe it's too earlier to make a choice between L2
> and L3-based VN approaches at this stage. In other word, the
> NVo3 problem statement and requirement drafts should be more
> generic without focusing too much on specific approaches/solutions.
>
> [[LY]] I think that both L2 or L3 VN should be address by the
> WG, period. We should let operator pick which they use.
>
> Lucy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Is it too earlier to make a choice from
> L2 and L3-based NV solutions?
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I fully agree with you that there are use cases for both approaches.
>
> However, based on the assumption that there will be only one
> PS doc to be accepted as claimed by WG chairs and the fact
> that there are many common places between L2 and L3 based NV
> approaches (e.g., multi-tenancy, support of VM mobility
> without renumbering, etc), I believe it would be better to
> make the problem statement more generic, with more focus on
> the problem itself, rather than focusing too much on specific
> solutions.
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Robert Raszuk [[email protected]]
> 发送时间: 2012年8月1日 1:41
> 到: Xuxiaohu
> Cc: [email protected]
> 主题: Re: [nvo3] Is it too earlier to make a choice from L2 and
> L3-based NV solutions?
>
> Hi Xuxiaohu,
>
> I would not really say that this is too early.
>
> I think there is already substantial evidence that this WG
> needs to work on both L2 and L3 based solutions.
>
> If this is in one or two problem statements documents I think
> it really does not matter provided that the document honestly
> reflects both needs.
>
> I am not sure what can change in weeks or months to come
> which would allow to dismiss one of the above spaces. I see
> the real use cases for both for at least next few years.
>
> Best regards,
> Robert.
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As stated in the current NVo3 WG charter, the current task
> for NVo3
> > is to define the data center network problems and requirements.
> >
> > IMHO, one major driver for a large VLAN or subnet aross
> multiple racks
> > even multiple data center is to allow VM mobility without
> renumbering.
> > To support this, we can either use MAC-based forwarding (i.e.,
> > L2-based NV) or host-route based forwarding (i.e., L3-based NV). Of
> > course, some may argue that server cluster is another driver.
> > As far as I know, there are still some legacy cluster technologies
> > which heavily rely on L2 connectivity (e.g., using non-IP
> protocol for
> > cluster membership keepalive), however, there are also some cluster
> > technologies which can run well on L3. And most importantly, those
> > vendors of legacy cluster technologies have already upgraded or
> > started to consider upgrading their cluster technologies to support
> > L3. Hence both L2 and L3 approaches have their own target scenarios.
> >
> > As we already know, each approach has its pros and cons,
> for example,
> > L2-based NV is more applicable (i.e., it can support both IP and
> > non-IP traffic), and L3-based NV is more scalable (e.g.,
> the flooding
> > domain and MAC domain associated with the extended subnet can be
> > partitioned and therefore be confined within a very small scope).
> > For those data center operators who still have some L2 applications
> > running in their data centers, they can choose L2-based NV,
> otherwise,
> > they can choose L3-based NV.
> >
> > Hence, I believe it's too earlier to make a choice between L2 and
> > L3-based VN approaches at this stage. In other word, the
> NVo3 problem
> > statement and requirement drafts should be more generic without
> > focusing too much on specific approaches/solutions.
> >
> > Best regards, Xiaohu _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
