+1 - Larry On 4/18/13 5:41 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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
