IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 19:24 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 0AAAD21F85EA for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.889, 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 MLANaZuQzsII for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C1821F85D4 for <dc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <dc@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:31 -0500
Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.224.56) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.109) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:28 -0500
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2E938C805E for <dc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0RJO5FO220114 for <dc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:13 -0500
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0RJO4q9008673 for <dc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:05 -0500
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-135-189.mts.ibm.com [9.76.135.189]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q0RJO2t3008580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:03 -0500
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 q0RJO0mc027840; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:24:01 -0500
Message-Id: <201201271924.q0RJO0mc027840@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net>
In-reply-to: <8122B69C-6EE4-4EBB-88C5-2649ABDA5872@unbehagen.net>
References: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E290D14D@dfweml503-mbx> <201201271829.q0RIT9N7027486@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <8122B69C-6EE4-4EBB-88C5-2649ABDA5872@unbehagen.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net> message dated "Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:18:28 -0700."
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:23:59 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12012719-7182-0000-0000-0000009753AE
Cc: "dc@ietf.org" <dc@ietf.org>, AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>, "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 19:24:36 -0000

> 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