Hi David,
I totally share your concerns with regard to the use of the VN/VNI concepts. For me the terms "Virtual Network Instance" and "Virtual Network" mean the same thing, and I think, both terms can be used interchangeably to refer to a specific virtual network. Instead of "Virtual Network Local Instance" or "VNLI" as you suggest, I can also imagine the term "Virtual Network Forwarding Instance" or "VNFI". By using this definition, a VN is actually a set of one or more VNFIs interconnected by a set of L3 tunnels. Please note that the term VNFI is independent of the service it provides (L2 or L3) as "forwarding" can happen at both Layer 2 or Layer 3. What do you think? Thanks, Florian >>> "Black, David" <[email protected]> 19.06.13 1.25 Uhr >>> In working on some control plane draft material, I've run across an inconsistency in the use of the concept of a "virtual network instance" (or VNI) between the problem statement and framework drafts. The problem statement draft does not define "virtual network instance" and uses that term more or less interchangeably with "virtual network" to refer to a specific virtual network. Here's an example with both terms used in the same sentence near the top of p.5: A key requirement is that each individual virtual network instance be isolated from other virtual network instances, with traffic crossing from one virtual network to another only when allowed by policy. The framework draft defines Virtual Network Instance (VNI) as effectively being the portion of a virtual network that is instantiated in an NVE: VNI: Virtual Network Instance. This is one instance of a virtual overlay network. It refers to the state maintained for a given VN on a given NVE. Two Virtual Networks are isolated from one another and may use overlapping addresses. Something's wrong here. Back in February, Thomas Narten proposed that we use the problem statement terminology consistently in the framework draft, but there hasn't been any further discussion. Speaking for myself, the problem statement draft's usage seems more intuitive (an "instance" of a virtual network is a virtual network, not part of one, as is the case in the framework draft), but we've had the VNI acronym around in the framework draft for a good long time now. If it were ok to change the framework draft, I would prefer: VNLI: Virtual Network Local Instance. This is an instance of a virtual overlay network on a specific NVE. The VNLI refers to the local state and associated processing for a given VN on a given NVE. Within an NVE, VNLIs are isolated from one another and may use overlapping network addresses. But that's just my 0.02 - what should be done about this? Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
