Kireeti, It seems that you make EVPN and IPVPN orthogonal now: If IP, use IPVPN, if not, EVPN.
Do you also see that the end system can be distinguished this way? Using IP VPN for all the IP applications is good in one way, but it requires the substantial changes on all the hosts/hypervisor and require the behavior changes on the VM/physical server. Giving millions VM/servers are there, will this realistic? Why do we ask all the tenant systems to change behavior in order to use of IPVPN? IMO, IPVPN is very useful for many applications and it is also necessary to support multi-tenancy in DC without changing tenant system behavior. Thanks, Lucy From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:21 PM To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H Cc: Thomas Narten; [email protected]; Aldrin Isaac Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] Hi Maria, On Dec 20, 2012, at 13:36, "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The question is what problem does EVPN solve? Pure layer 2 traffic. Yes, it does exist, and needs to be dealt with properly. But just that. In the context of DC, EVPN can only address packets bridged in the same VLAN. If most packets are routed then EVPN, even if all the complexity problems are addressed, doesn't achieve anything for the traffic that is routed. I believe it is the wrong tradeoff to design a solution around EVPN (i.e., around bridging). Agreed. Kireeti.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
