inline From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday 14 November 2013 19:19 To: Cisco Hertoghs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt
Yves, From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:15 PM To: Lucy yong; Xuxiaohu; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt I disagree with the need for an NVE to NVE control plane. [Lucy] do you think we need NVE-NVE control plane? I don’t think this is what you mean from the following statement. No we dont need an NVE to NVE control plane. That doesn't mean that you can't colocate a portion of the distributed NVA with every NVE, which is the model that e.g. BGP/L3VPN or ISIS/TRILL uses. [Lucy] Agreed. NVA can collocate w/ NVE. (partially or entire). And as a result there is only a need for a control plane between the NVE function and the NVA function. Yves Lucy Yves From: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday 14 November 2013 16:59 To: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt I share my view. The current architecture document is more focusing on NVE-NVA interface and assumes that NVA is able to obtain all VN and/or address mapping information’s that an NVE needs. That does implicitly indicate that no control plane protocol is needed between NVEs. (NVE-NVE data plane protocol is still needed). From the architecture perspective, if it allows the control plane protocol exist both between NVE-NVA and NVE-NVE, it may lead very complex solution and many operation issue; it has to resolve which information NVE should trust or use, i.e. from NVA or from NVE. Weather this means excluding TRILL or SPB, it is debatable. The current charter clearly states that NVO3 targets network virtualization over IP network. Beyond this point, TRILL has directory based solution, which fits into NVE-NVA architecture. SPB also have SPB-EVPN solution that also aligns with NVE-NVA architecture. IMO: NVE-NVA based control plane architecture and NVE-NVE based control plane architecture are both possible for NVO3, but not the combined architecture. As you said, it is true that NVE-NVE based architecture is useful in some small applications. Since TRILL and SBP already address it, NVO3 should only focus on the NVE-NVA based architecture. One of NVO3 goal is the scalability. Lucy From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:58 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [nvo3] 答复: Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt Hi all, In the current arch draft, there is no mention of NVE-NVE protocol. Does it mean that there is no need for direct exchange of VN and/or address mapping information between NVEs? If so, Does it mean that the control plane mechanisms used by TRILL or SPB which depend on the NVE-NVE interaction are not suitable for multi-tenant data center networks anymore, leaving aside whether the underlay is IP or not. IMHO, the NVE-NVE protocol is still useful in some small and medium sized multi-tenant data center networks. AFAIK, most tenants within public cloud data centers are small and medium sized enterprises which usually don’t need a lot of VMs. That means the number of NVEs for most VNs would not be very large especially in the case where the NVE is deployed at physical switches, rather than hypervisors/servers. In this case, the VN membership can be discovered via IGP flooding and the address mapping information of a given VN could be directly exchanged among NVEs of that VN, without a need for a dedicated NVA. Best regards, Xiaohu 发件人:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] 代表Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) 发送时间: 2013年11月13日 21:58 收件人:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs judge if there is consensus to adopt draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt as an NVO3 working group draft. Please respond to this email on the list with 'support' or 'do not support'. Please also send any comments on the draft to the NVO3 list. Please consider whether this draft takes the right basic approach, and is a good basis for the work going forward (and potential future rechartering). It does not have to be perfect at this stage. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This poll closes on Friday 29th November 2013. Regards Matthew and Benson
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
