IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 19 January 2012 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 C10FB21F854B for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Cb0fxpc8wccU for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A54C21F8548 for <dc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <dc@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:48:57 -0700
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:48:21 -0700
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4A51FF004C for <dc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:48:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0JHmIZ5232262 for <dc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:48:19 -0500
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0JHlXZe025595 for <dc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:47:33 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-45-53.mts.ibm.com [9.76.45.53]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q0JHlVAY025432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:47:32 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q0JHlS5J015128; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:47:28 -0500
Message-Id: <201201191747.q0JHlS5J015128@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Steven Blake <sblake@extremenetworks.com>
In-reply-to: <1326989277.2513.4.camel@ecliptic.extremenetworks.com>
References: <CAH==cJxfmae0u0bSF4cn_haLgY1T-vnw2102PApzYtj5Aty=GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANtnpwhFJ746ooi9GUCxfBqsOXu14hDka0D9inhh5pPq3U_ZTA@mail.gmail.com> <201201171540.q0HFeNan008591@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CANtnpwjexDPazOXLYHHjn3+JDi-o49Bv5ptDExAZHAA8Ra2m-A@mail.gmail.com> <201201191419.q0JEJTLF010649@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <1326989277.2513.4.camel@ecliptic.extremenetworks.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Steven Blake <sblake@extremenetworks.com> message dated "Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:07:56 -0500."
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:47:27 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12011917-6148-0000-0000-000002C21805
Cc: "dc@ietf.org" <dc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:49:03 -0000

Steven,

> Several system vendors (myself included) stood up in Taipei and said
> "one encapsulation, please".  If IETF can facilitate industry
> convergence on a small set of NVO3 encapsulations (preferably one), that
> would be a big win for Ethernet switch vendors.

I agree completely.

But my questions were asking about the apparent lack of  interest from
operators/implementers/market players regarding Bhumip's draft and the
apparent desire to have some sort of standards work related to the
general VM migration problem.

Is there such interest?

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email