I agree, my understanding was that the tagging needed to be Persistant.

J
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:18 AM, David Allan I <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm, we have a work item (WT-317 network enabled virtual residential 
> gateway, which BTW is a common theme in the industry these days), which for 
> various reasons the TR-101 tagging needs to be preserved all the way to 
> whatever hosts the virtual residential gateway. Which could be a VM....
> 
> That was the industry's thinking
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 8:54 AM
> To: David Allan I; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nvo3] NVO3 Arch: Proposed text on VLANs in L2 Service
> 
> Hi Allan, Thomas
> The NVO3 charter clearly says it solves the datacenter problem. TR-101 
> describes the broadband network scenario as I know, and should not be an 
> input for NVO3.
> For my knowledge, the double tag happens in datacenter when S-channel is 
> enabled, but the S-Tag should be terminated on NVE. 
> Since this is architecture draft, it is not a big problem to loose the number 
> of tags. But I could not see the benefit to have multiple tags.
> 
> BR
> Lizhong
> 
> David Allan I <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I don’t think it actually matters how many are in an encapsulated stack. I 
>> could think of a use case (BBF TR-101) where NVO3 was used between a BNG and 
>> a VAP where I would want to be able to encapsulate a tag stack. So I'd not 
>> want to restrict it.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 7:08 PM
>> To: David Allan I; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: [nvo3] NVO3 Arch: Proposed text on VLANs in L2 Service
>> 
>> Sorry, I should say, at most one VLAN tag could be passed transparently. 
>> This limitation is not for the VAP.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Lizhong
>> 
>> 
>> David Allan I <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Can you clarify your comment?
>>> 
>>> Are you referring to only one encapsulated tag (e.g. a VAP client can only 
>>> originate a single tag)...?
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lizhong Jin
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 7:52 AM
>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Arch: Proposed text on VLANs in L2 Service
>>> 
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>> I think we should limit the number of VLAN tags to be only one tag 
>>> explicitly here.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Lizhong
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> Hi.
>>> 
>>> Here is proposed text on the topic of VLANs in L2 Service.
>>> 
>>> For terminology section:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   <t hangText="VLAN">
>>>     Unless stated otherwise, the terms VLAN and VLAN Tag are
>>>     used in this document denote a C-VLAN and the terms are
>>>     used interchangably to improve readability.
>>>   </t>
>>> 
>>> Note; Following goes as a subsection withink 3.1  (at end of section)
>>> 
>>> <section anchor="vlan-tags-section" title="VLAN Tags in L2 Service">
>>>     <t>
>>>       An NVO3 L2 virtual network service can carry L2 VLAN tags
>>>       provided by a Tenant System, but does not use them in deciding
>>>       where and how to forward traffic. Such VLAN tags can be passed
>>>       through, so that Tenant Systems that send or expect to receive
>>>       them can be supported as appropriate. 
>>>     </t>
>>>     <t>
>>>       The processing of VLAN tags that an NVE receives from a TS is
>>>       controlled by settings associated with the VAP. Just as in the
>>>       case with ports on Ethernet switches, a number of settings could
>>>       be imagined. For example, C-TAGs can be passed through
>>>       transparently, they could always be stripped upon receipt from a
>>>       Tenant System, they could be compared against a list of
>>>       explicitely confiured tags, etc.
>>>     </t>
>>>     <t>
>>>       Note that the handling of C-VIDs has additional complications,
>>>       as described in <xref target="vlan-tags-split-nve"/>  below.
>>>     </t>
>>> </section>
>>> 
>>> Note: the following goes as a new subection 4.2.1 (subsection of
>>> Split-NVE)
>>> 
>>> <section anchor="vlan-tags-split-nve" title="Tenant VLAN handling in 
>>> Split-NVE Case">
>>>   <t>
>>>     Preserving tenant VLAN tags across a NVO3 as described in
>>>     <xref target="vlan-tags-section"/> poses additional complications
>>>     in the split-NVE case. The portion of the NVE that performs the
>>>     encapsulation function needs access to the specific VLAN tags that
>>>     the Tenant System is using in order to include them in the
>>>     encapsulated packet. When an NVE is implemented entirely within
>>>     the hypervisor, the NVE has access to the complete original packet
>>>     (including any VLAN tags) sent by the tenant. In the split-NVE
>>>     case, however, the VLAN tag used between the hypervisor and
>>>     offloaded portions of the NVE normally only identify the specific
>>>     VN tha
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to