The typical use case is to support subnet emulation, e.g., a group of links over which broadcast is emulated as with LANE.
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 7:11 PM, David Allan I <[email protected]> wrote: > > My point would be that introducing additional complexity in an overlay > should have a use case associate with it. It would not be something you would > do gratuitously…. > > SO I’m looking for the draft to provide a use case for this vs. simply > mentioning subnetting without any context J > > Cheers > Dave > > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:07 PM > To: David Allan I <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Bocci, Matthew > (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] FW: Call for interest on NVO3 use case draft > > > > > On 8/12/2016 4:16 PM, David Allan I wrote: > 4.2 Why I would subnet my overlay could use some explanation. I normally > think of subnetting as a convenient address summarization technique > dependent on topology, and with an overlay I don’t have a topology. > > The topology of an overlay is determined by its tunnels, just as the topology > of the underlying net is determined by its links. > > A subnet in an overlay corresponds either to a single multipoint tunnel or to > a set of tunnels that transparently acts as such - just as a subnet in the > Internet base network corresponds to a shared access link or a set of links > that transparently act as such (e.g., switched ethernet). > > Joe
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
