Hi Bhargav, Thank you for the support and feedback.
Since this is the use case draft, it just focuses on the general use cases, not particular solution. There may be multiple solutions to apply one use case and we do not intend to suggestion any solution for a use case. In the case we need to give an example to explain the use case, we should state out clearly that it is just an example. Section 4.2 intends to describe the use case for a DC virtual network and an external user network are connected via a WAN VPN. It gives one example how to make DC virtual network and WAN VPN interworking via a local LAN, which is like rfc4364 option A. Therefore, in this example, PE is not aware of VxLAN ID, DC GW will map VxLAN ID to a local VLAN (ID). Since the VLAN ID is just local between PE and CE, it should not be an issue of 12bits. However, you can also use rfc4364 option B to implement this use case, where DCGW and WAN PE acts as an ASBR in two ASes, in this case, WAN PE is aware of VxLAN, i.e. VxLAN ID will be used between DCGW and WAN PE to identify tenant virtual network. Other solutions can be implemented too. We will fix the text in next version to make clear between a use case and an example to describe the case. Regards, Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: Lucy yong; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: the request to adopt draft-mity-nvo3-use-case-04 as nvo3 > WG document > > Hi Lucy, > > > > Support this draft and have a comment WRT section 4.2 *DC virtual > network and WAN VPN Interconnection* > > > > The draft suggests to use VRF-LITE mechanism between PE2 and NVE2, > where VLAN is used to identfiy a customer/tenant. VxLAN is used in DC > networks to identify a tenant which is 24 bit where as VLAN is 12 bit. > Does the draft suggest to use VLAN or VxLAN between PE-CE?. If it were > VxLAN, should not PE be VxLAN aware ? > > > > Thanks > Bhargav > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy > yong [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:41 AM > To: Matthew Bocci; Benson Schliesser > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [nvo3] the request to adopt draft-mity-nvo3-use-case-04 as > nvo3 WG document > > Hi Matthew and Benson, > > In IETF 85 meeting, there is a good consent in keeping this draft as > individual WG document and move it along with the > problem/framework/requirement drafts. We, co-authors, would like see it > being adopted as WG doc. now. > > Regards, > Lucy > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
