> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Thomas > Narten > 发送时间: 2013年11月16日 6:19 > 收件人: Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) > 抄送: [email protected]; Lucy yong > 主题: [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. > > 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
I'd like to know the reason behind that decision. Xiaohu > 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 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
