Hi Tom, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:58 AM > To: Lucy yong > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-nvo3- > frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt > > Hi Lucy. > > Lucy yong <[email protected]> writes: > > > IMO: this is the reason why we need to define a new service type for > > this. > > I've tried following this thread and have also read the draft. I admit > to having difficulty understanding what the actual issue is or what > text is being asked for in the framework document. > > It sounds to me like the crux of the issue is that for the case of > providing L3 (IP) service to Tenant Systems (TSs), there are two > sub-cases: > > - all the TSs are on the same subnet, so they all can reach each > other without going through a router > > - TSs are on different IP subnets, with the collection of those > subnets comprising a single NVO3 Virtual Network. > > Are you saying we need a different "service type" to distinguish those > two cases? If so, what do you mean by "service type"? [Lucy] No, this is not what I mean. I mean we need a new service type to be able to support a single NVo3 virtual network that contains both cases via a L2 interface. > > I think of NVO3 providing either an L2 or L3 service to TSes. I.e., 2 > different types of service. Are you proposing that the L3 case be > split into two subcases? [Lucy] L2 service assumes a L2 interface and L3 service assume a L3 interface. VM has L2 interface only. This is about to address VM communication in a single nvo3 virtual network. assumption is to not change VM network function. > > If so, I agree that the two subcases are different, but I've always > thought of them as being the same service. I.e., that L3 service would > handle both cases. Why would we want to split them into different > "services"? And in any case, one could look at the first case (just > one subnet) as just being a special case of the second case, so why > handle it specially? [Lucy] But L3 service requires L3 interface between PE and CE. Do we want to change VM and vswitch to support that? > > Do I understand correctly? [Lucy] Hope it is not. Regards, Lucy > > Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
