IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dc] comments and suggestions to draft-narten-nv03-overlay-problem-statment-01

AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B94A21F8675 for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:38:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MC0RPlrQmBeM for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C3B21F8650 for <dc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ACR83500; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:38:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:36:26 -0800
Received: from DFWEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.29]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:36:27 -0800
From: AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net>
Thread-Topic: [dc] comments and suggestions to draft-narten-nv03-overlay-problem-statment-01
Thread-Index: AQHM3Sh75ODcms7W/Uua1gvAD5+CBZYhHjuA//+aheA=
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:36:26 +0000
Message-ID: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E290D35B@dfweml503-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <201201271924.q0RJO0mc027840@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.193.60.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "dc@ietf.org" <dc@ietf.org>, "david.black@emc.com" <david.black@emc.com>, Dinesh Dutt <ddutt@cisco.com>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, "kreeger@cisco.com" <kreeger@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dc] comments and suggestions to draft-narten-nv03-overlay-problem-statment-01
X-BeenThere: dc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Data Center Mailing List <dc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dc>, <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dc>
List-Post: <mailto:dc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc>, <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:38:54 -0000

Thomas, I'm not aware of any SPB-V implementations ... yet ... but there are a number of interoperable SPB-M implementations (see http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2011/aq-ashwood-smith-spbm-3rd-interop-0718-v01.pdf ).

My understanding is that there are a bunch of live deployments of SPB-M already including DC's but I am not privy to all the details of course.

So I think concentrating on SPB-M would make sense, but if somebody feels otherwise by all means speak up.

Peter Ashwood-Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Paul Unbehagen
Cc: AshwoodsmithPeter; dc@ietf.org; david.black@emc.com; Dinesh Dutt; Linda Dunbar; Murari Sridharan; kreeger@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [dc] comments and suggestions to draft-narten-nv03-overlay-problem-statment-01

> Also, all implementations and deployments of SPB are SPBm, the
>  scaling and ability to deal with Mac explosions help in the DC.

Can others confirm that SPB-M is what deployments are using? And that
SPB-V is essentially irrelevant?

The benefits of SPB-M over SPB-V seem pretty compelling to me. It
would be nice if we could focus all SPB discussions on SPB-M rather
than worry about SPB-V.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email