Not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you really mean to say there is no need for a control plane protocol period in between NVEs?
Or are you stating there is no need for an additional control plane protocol? The existing one(s) would cut it. On 11/15/13, 2:19 PM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >NVO3 does not need an NVE to NVE control protocol. > >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). > >If folk disagree, now would be a good time to have that conversation. > >"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 donât 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
