> > > > > > > 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"? > > [Lucy] Original subject is about to construct a tenant network that > > contain multiple subnets. > > This is a complication that is not desirable as it is bad idea to have > to multiple subnets per VLAN. [Lucy] Agree. That is the reason I don't see EVPN fit it and propose to have a new service type. Do you say that IPVPN-end-system can be used to construct a tenant network that contain multiple subnets? or you say that for a virtual network overlay, there is no need for IP subnet schema. Just use IP network address /32 at all tenant systems.
Lucy > > > If all tenant systems in the tenant use IP, do you construct on IP > VPN for the tenant network, or configure > > multiple? Can tenant systems on the same subnet run a broadcast > > application under this construction? > > > > Configuring local /32 IP address on a tenant system means that there > is > > no longer host address, just having network address. Is this what we > > want to do in the network virtualization in DC. Does this mean that > in > > the nvo3, a subnet is no longer useful? I am not expert on addressing > > and like to hear people's opinion on this. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > [Lucy] Thanks for the explanation. WAN IPVPN [RFC4346] provides intra > > and inter IP subnet routing seamlessly because PE treats CE as a > router > > and vice versa. Do you think that IPVPN-end-system fit all tenant IP > > networks or applications? > > > > Regards, > > Lucy > > > > > > 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
