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

Joel,

Hypervisor control is in the hypervisor manager. Switch control is in
the network control plane. These are parallel silos, that don't
interact. 

Either the hypervisor manager defers control to the network control
plane, or the switches defer control to the manager. Or, some new third
entity emerges to control both, and both hypervisor and switch defer
control to that entity. 

We can't have separate control models and expect this to work in the
same way. 

Which of these (or other) models you think presents a reasonable
approach to reconcile hypervisor control and network control?

Thanks, Ashish

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
Cc: dc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

While one can construct strawman hypothesis in whcih there are reasons 
to have different tunnel control protocols depepnding upon end-point 
location, equally one can construct reasonably hypothesis in which the 
same protocol mechanisms work whether the end-point is at the VM, the 
Hypervisor, the ToR switch, or an aggregation switch.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/20/2012 12:07 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) wrote:
>
> 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:melinda.shore@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:06 AM
> To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> Cc: dc@ietf.org
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> dc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
>