Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A41521F871C; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, 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 AsMtInDq24IS; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A64E21F8738; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=4376; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335196678; x=1336406278; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ONvS8hy6NM4i0+/Ld+9+YJYqksOX4cEOM/czmbQ4OfU=; b=YnTkyHxWSt5H+TPdlpvViay/Ckj+AU41ysHiAi3hNH0ukCbUN8U63WPI yqnMrdaC7gYn6HMgHwzqfk0gCXhansBonbYNs7S+ZfpmsMioHk7b/f/J+ pwrGepd4TORdyFJDPbG+7tMNuPcwfhKNo83hJH2ScW8h8jU+fxAzLw0Wj 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALN6lU+Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABEsVGBB4IKAQEEEgECI0ABEAshFg8JAwIBAgFFEwEHAQEXB4dtmk+DQhCcRYpyhl0ElXqOVYECZ4JqgVM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,467,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="135975983"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2012 15:57:57 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3NFvutD020631; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:57:56 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q3NFvskV007149; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:55 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4F957C03.5020108@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:55 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update
References: <20120417164749.21952.99664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120417164749.21952.99664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:58:00 -0000
Based on the list discussion, I have updated the draft NVO3 charter to take into consideration the feedback received so far. - Stewart NVO3: Network Virtualization Over Layer 3 Chairs - TBD Area - Routing Area Director - Stewart Bryant INT Area Adviser - TBD OPS Area Adviser - TBD Support for multi-tenancy has become a core requirement of data centers (DCs), especially in the context of data centers supporting virtualized hosts known as virtual machines (VMs). Two key requirements needed to support multi-tenancy are traffic isolation, so that a tenant's traffic is not visible to any other tenant, and address independence, so that one tenant's addressing does not collide with other tenants addressing schemes or with addresses used within the data center itself. Another key requirement is to support the placement and migration of VMs anywhere within the data center, without being limited by DC network constraints such as the IP subnet boundaries of the underlying DC network. An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data Center Virtual Private Network (DCVPN)) is a VPN that is viable across a scaling range of a few thousand VMs to several million VMs running on greater than 100K physical servers. It thus has good scaling properties from relatively small networks to networks with several million DCVPN endpoints and hundreds of thousands of DCVPNs within a single administrative domain. Note that although this charter uses the term VM throughout, NVO3 must also support connectivity to traditional hosts e.g. hosts that do not have hypervisors. NVO3 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy that reside at the network layer rather than using traditional isolation mechanisms that rely on the underlying layer 2 technology (e.g., VLANs). The NVO3 WG will determine which types of service are needed by typical DC deployments (for example, IP and/or Ethernet). NVO3 will document the problem statement, the applicability, and an architectural framework for DCVPNs within a data center environment. Within this framework, functional blocks will be defined to allow the dynamic attachment / detachment of VMs to their DCVPN, and the interconnection of elements of the DCVPNs over the underlying physical network. This will support the delivery of packets to the destination VM, and provide the network functions required for the migration of VMs within the network in a sub-second timeframe. Based on this framework, the NVO3 WG will develop requirements for both control plane protocol(s) and data plane encapsulation format(s), and perform a gap analysis of existing candidate mechanisms. In addition to functional and architectural requirements, the NVO3 WG will develop management, operational, maintenance, troubleshooting, security and OAM protocol requirements. The NVO3 WG will investigate the interconnection of the DCVPNs and their tenants with non-NVO3 IP network(s) to determine if any specific work is needed. The NVO3 WG will write the following informational RFCs, which must be substantially complete before rechartering can be considered: Problem Statement Framework document Control plane requirements document Data plane requirements document Operational Requirements Gap Analysis Driven by the requirements and consistent with the gap analysis, the NVO3 WG may request being rechartered to document solutions consisting of one or more data plane encapsulations and control plane protocols as applicable. Any documented solutions will use existing IETF protocols if suitable. Otherwise, the NVO3 WG may propose the development of new IETF protocols, or the writing of an applicability statement for a non-IETF protocol. If the WG anticipates the adoption of the technologies of another SDO, such as the IEEE, as part of the solution, it will liaise with that SDO to ensure the compatibility of the approach. Milestones: Dec 2012 Problem Statement submitted for IESG review Dec 2012 Framework document submitted for IESG review Dec 2012 Data plane requirements submitted for IESG review Dec 2012 Operational Requirements submitted for IESG review Mar 2012 Control plane requirements submitted for IESG review Mar 2012 Gap Analysis submitted for IESG review Apr 2012 Recharter or close Working Group
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Thomas Narten
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Joel jaeggli
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Anoop Ghanwani
- Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN Linda Dunbar
- Re: Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN Stewart Bryant
- Re: Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN James M. Polk
- RE: Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN Linda Dunbar
- RE: [nvo3] Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [nvo3] Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [nvo3] Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN… Stewart Bryant
- WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3)… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Stewart Bryant
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Pat Thaler
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Joe Pelissier (jopeliss)
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… david.black
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Pat Thaler
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Joe Pelissier (jopeliss)
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Alan Kavanagh
- RE: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Over… Linda Dunbar