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

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lizhong,

For most networking technologies I know we interact with the neighbor
routers/edge router, which inturn can propagate information through
the remaining routers, if required.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On 1/20/12, Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Vishwas and all,
> EVB like technologies currently only focus on the interaction between
> hypervisor and ToR. The network control plane may not locate only on ToR.
> What's more, the interaction is not happened between hypervisor and its
> connected ToR, but maybe between hypervisor and ToR in other site.
>
> I agree, hypervisor and network based encapsulations are quite different.
> But we could consider the design that ToR has same control plane as
> hypervisor. Then communication between VM and physical server would have
> same control plane.
>
> Regards
> Lizhong
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: <vishwas.ietf at gmail.com>
> To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>, "Ashish Dalela (adalela)"
> <adalela at cisco.com>
> Cc: dc at ietf.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:20:13 -0800
> In-reply-to: <4F19040B.7000901 at joelhalpern.com>
> List-id: IETF Data Center Mailing List <dc.ietf.org>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Ashish,
>
> If you look at technologies like EVB you will see the interaction between
> the hypervisor and the network control plane.
>
> _Vishwas
>
>
>
>
> -- Sent from my HP TouchPad
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jan 19, 2012 10:05 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> Several of the proposal use mechanisms that are equally applicable. For
> a general description of one class of such approaches, look at the dcop
> draft Warren Kumari and I wrote. I am sure that there are other classes
> as well.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 1/20/2012 12:52 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) wrote:
>> 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 at joelhalpern.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:58 AM
>> To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
>> Cc: dc at 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 at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:06 AM
>>> To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
>>> Cc: dc at 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>