Snip.. Following up on Ivan's comment about tagged vs. untagged network interfaces in VMs, the first paragraph in Section 3.1 of this draft has an unfortunate mixture of VLAN-IDs assigned by the network/hypervisor with VLAN-IDs used by VMs. While both are VLAN-IDs, their management is sufficiently different that they should be discussed separately. In particular, I suggest splitting the last sentence of that paragraph out into a separate paragraph on VLAN-tagged traffic to/from tagged network interfaces in VMs and providing a longer discussion somewhere earlier that contrasts hypervisor assignment of VLAN-IDs for traffic to/from untagged VM network interfaces with VLAN-ID usage by tagged VM network interfaces.
[[LY]] Yes, I agree. The draft should discuss the scenarios separately. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Somesh > Gupta > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:07 AM > To: 'Yakov Rekhter'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on Live Migration and VLAN-IDs > > Hopefully this is not a repeat of something hashed out earlier. > > It is not clear to me why an L2-CUG would be tied to a VLAN-ID > in an nvo3 network? > > Is this document discussing the problem as is today without > the changes nvo3 would bring? If that is the case, fine. > > Thanks > Somesh > _______________________________________________ > 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
