> Dino, > > Are you talking about one TS connected to two different NVEs?
No, I was talking about any NVE talking to any other NVE, regardless of the number of TSes attached to it. > Then, there are much other issues, such as will you allow multiple uplinks to > NVEs being active, do traffic between "a" to "b" have to be symmetric? Etc. > many of them being discussed in TRILL. ;-) Dino > > > Linda > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Dino Farinacci >> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:40 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: [email protected]; Lucy yong; Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] No need for NVE-NVE control plane [was Re: Poll for >> WG adoption and IPR check for draft-narten-nvo3-arch-01.txt >> >>> NVO3 does not need an NVE to NVE control protocol. >> >> How about so an NVE knows a path to another NVE is up? Because if it is >> not, it could choose another NVE that supports the end-host. >> >>> Calling this out explicitly, as it is consistent with the current >>> architecture document. There is no need for an NVE to NVE control >>> protocol, for the purpose of maintaining/populating the mapping >>> tables. There may well be interactions between NVEs, such as setting >>> up tunnels, creating security associations for protecting data plane >>> traffic, or providing error indications (e.g., equivalent of ICMP "TS >>> unreachable" responses). >> >> Then don't worry about naming semantics. Let's just agree that NVEs >> need to talk to each other, other than just encapsulating to each other. >> >>> If folk disagree, now would be a good time to have that conversation. >> >> I know you may not be suggesting using ICMP unreachables or the >> equivalent, but remember they just tell you when something "goes >> unreachable". They don't tell you when something has become reachable >> (not just become reachable but in a timely fashion), so you'll need >> some NVE-to-NVE interaction. >> >> Dino >> >>> >>> "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> 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
