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

["Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <[e-mail]>]

I would not arrive at the conclusion that hypervisor work should or
should not be done in IETF. That's a separate question. VXLAN and NVGRE
are hypervisor based approaches. But, they don't have control planes
(yet). My point is that finding a common map-encap scheme isn't that
hard. The harder part is how to make the hypervisor and network based
map-encap *control planes* work the same way. 

If they don't work the same way, then L2-in-L2, L2-in-L3, L3-in-L3 has a
network flavor and a hypervisor flavor.

Thanks, Ashish


-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:06 AM
To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

On 1/19/12 7:26 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) wrote:
>Bandwidth needs, but they have the
> same tunnel. How do I distinguish between them based on the tunnel? In
> fact, if the tenant isolation is in the hypervisor, then the
underlying
> network has no clue which tenant needs what policy.

Well, that's not true.  In the case of IPSec we've got SPIs, and
there are similar demultiplexing mechanisms in other technologies.

But frankly I think that if you're going to distinguish between
tunnel endpoints in the hypervisor and tunnel endpoints in other
sorts of network devices I think you're going to be somewhat
hard-pressed to make the case for working on the former in
the IETF.

Melinda