Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted, Bernie,



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >My concern is that I got the impression that the addresses this document
> provides need to be tracked by the server, that is that they are stateful
> ...
>
> I don't think that is the case. This is the address of a Rendezvous Point
> and the multicast group that the client needs to join. I think there is one
> set of these for each VNI (VXLAN Network Identifier). So the DHCP server
> needs to have a mapping from VNI to this information to return it to the
> client when requested, and this thus makes more careful review by the dhc
> likely a requirement before it becomes a 'standard'.
>
>
agreed.


> I'm not exactly sure why this isn't just a property of the scope or prefix
> the client is on (i.e., assigned addresses from - or if stateless is used,
> the address from which the "inform" is received) and why the VNI would have
> to be sent from client to server, but that's probably because of my lack of
> understanding as to this entire area.
>
> We clarified this, client will not send VNI instead it will ask it with
ORO as you suggested.


> > As for whether this should get a presentation in the DHC working group
> ...
>
> That is also my concern. If nvo3 is not interested in this work, why
> should we be?
>
> If this were targeted to be adopted by dhc (as it was originally) it would
> be more reasonable to request a presentation.
>
> However, I think it more appropriate in that this be a nvo3 draft as they
> better understand whether it is needed and appropriate; the dhc wg should
> certainly continue to monitor this work and provide suggestions and
> recommendations with respect to the dhc options format and processing
> requirements. Once adopted by nvo3 (or if the nvo3 chairs request an
> assessment by dhc), we can certainly take a more careful look including a
> presentation.
>
>
Agreed.


Regards,

Behcet

> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:08 PM
> To: <[e-mail]>; Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: [e-mail]; Dhc Chairs
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for
> draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt
>
> My concern is that I got the impression that the addresses this document
> provides need to be tracked by the server, that is that they are stateful.
>   I'm not sure that's the case-it just looked that way to me.
>
> As for whether this should get a presentation in the DHC working group,
> that is of course up to the chairs, but given that this is work needed by
> another working group, it would be nice if the working group chairs for
> nvo3 were to tell the working group chairs of dhc that they are seriously
> looking to adopt this document as a working group item and want the DHC
> working group's advice.   Otherwise, what's the point?   I certainly
> wouldn't support advancing this document in the DHC working group without
> such a request, and then only if this is in fact a stateful option.
>
>