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

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

	I agree with some subset of L2-in-L2, L2-in-L3, and L3-in-L3 encaps.  I'm not sure what we mean by network vs hypervisor based encaps.  Do we really want to have a different encap depending on where it's originated or terminated?  Anyone see problems with this if one end of the connection is an appliance (and connected to, say a switch) and one end that's a hypervisor guest?  When folks were asking for a small subset (where small is 1<=n<=3 maybe) I didn't think that they were saying that this was a set of two, one for hypervisors, and one for "network elements" what ever that might mean (I would tend to view a hypervisor switch as an element in the network)

	Chris

On 19Jan2012, at 08.23, Ashish Dalela (adalela) wrote:

> 
>>> "one encapsulation, please".  
> 
> How do you propose we reconcile the present scenario:
> 
> - Hypervisor based encapsulations
> - Network based encapsulations
> - L2 in L2 encapsulation
> - L2 in L3 encapsulation
> - L3 in L3 encapsulation
> 
> Thanks, Ashish
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Steven Blake
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:38 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
> 
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 06:19 -0800, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
>>> It may be very helpful to bring one or more of these
>>> proprietary VM migration approaches to IETF for consideration
>>> for standardization, if that is appropriate.
>> 
>> Well, let's start with this as a premise. Sure, in the utopia of open
>> standards everwhere, having all this stuff standardized would be
>> great.
>> 
>> But let's be realistic. Are any of the vendors/implementors of these
>> systems coming to the IETF saying they want or need a standard? (If
>> so, I must have missed this.)
>> 
>> If the market heavyweights are not indicating that they will
>> participate and/or implement such a standard, would anything the IETF
>> does in this space be relevant? (Based on experience, I fear the
>> answer is a very clear "no".)
>> 
>> Finally, do we see operators who use the existing systems coming to
>> the IETF saying they want open standards here? So far, the silence has
>> been deafening so far...
>> 
>>> Sure, we'll update the draft to articulate these requirements.
>> 
>> Frankly, until and unless the questions above can be answered in a
>> more positive manner, IMO there is little point in spending any cycles
>> in this area, other than getting positive answers to the questions.
>> 
>> Or am I missing something?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /////////////////////////////////////////////
> Steven Blake       [e-mail]
> Extreme Networks              [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf