Hi Ed, Thank you for your review. The sentence you quoted tries to explain the requirement to disassociate all (meaning more than one) addresses given owning single address per VM is pretty common. It has no assumption on if VMs are or are not highly connected.
My feeling is to make the logic clearer, it would be better to put it before "In the Split-NVE architecture, the external NVE may be able to reach multiple MAC and IP addresses via a TSI." Thanks, Yizhou From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edwin Mallette Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment - Hi authors, all, I was reviewing this document and I noted an assumption made that (while technically true, I don't really know but it sounds like it might be true :) might not be a good or safe assumption based on some implementations that are almost entirely not the case described here: 1.2 Target Scenarios - last paragraph... "In the majority of cases, a VM will be acting as a simple host that will have a single TSI and single MAC and IP visible to the external NVE." I'm not quite sure why this is pertinent per se. These requirements should clearly account for both highly connected VMs (and implementations that are 90+% that case) and the non-highly connected VMs. Please let me know if I'm not quite thinking about this the right way. Cheers! Ed
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
