Lucy, > > This is about VM configuration models. The guest VM IPv4 > configuration > > could be: > > A) local /32 IP address + /32 point-to-point route to a default > > gateway + default route. > > B) local /32 IP address + /24 to local Ethernet interface + > default > > route to an address on that /24. > > > > Both those models are supported by draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-00. > [Lucy] When using the solution in the draft, you create one L3VPN > instances for case A. > Do you create one or more L3VPN instances for case B?
I am not sure what you mean by "L3VPN instance"? > > In the model B) a set of VMs are configured to belong to the same IP > > subnet (which is still often the case how the VM are being > configured). > > Both models can be supported. In the case of B), the NVE implements > > proxy ARP for all the addresses on the /24. With proxy ARP, there is > no > > difference between B) and A) with respect to forwarding. > [Lucy] In case A, you forward on IP address. In case B, do you also > always forward on IP address? > How do you set up a policy per a subnet? > > > It is just that the virtual subnet has no locality across a data- > center. > [Lucy] Do you mean that both case A and B only apply within a DC? Virtual subnet has no locality either intra- or inter-DC. Maria > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
