+1 -- Paul Unbehagen
On Apr 18, 2013, at 8:11 AM, "Black, David" <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Thomas >> Narten >> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:41 AM >> To: Qin Wu >> Cc: Eric Gray; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem- >> statement >> >> Hi Qin. >> >>> Your proposed text improve a lot since it deal with both communication >>> between two VN but also communication between one VN and one >>> Non-VN, using general term "gateway" makes sense to me. >>> Regarding my added text, what I am trying to say if we need to >>> consider VM movement between two VNs (i.e.,VM mobility case), >> >> IMO, no. >> >> My assumption is that the basic model we have is that a VM is >> associated with one VN (** but see below). Movement from one VN to >> another is not really part of the model. Movement from one VN to >> another raises a bunch of questions, including, perhaps whether a >> change in IP address of the VM is needed. >> >> Unless someone can make a compelling argument for this case (i.e., >> what the use case and semantics are), I just see it as adding >> complexity without value. >> >> **note: a VM can be associated with more than one VM, but then it has >> multiple interfaces, each connected to one VN. But then, movemment >> from one VN to another implies that one interface is first associated >> with VNA and then with VNB, which then falls back to the same case >> as a VM having only one interface and one VN connection. >> >> Thomas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
