re: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?
Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 14 October 2011 02:48 UTC
Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40A121F8C17; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.381
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 U3TmVv6o9+Iz; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF521F8C10; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT1006SOBS0EY@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:48:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT100I9YBS0K9@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:48:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEL25499; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:59 +0800
Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:54 +0800
Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.181]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:51 +0800
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:47:51 +0000
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Subject: re: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?
X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.66]
To: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE738D15@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_C7RzNrZIxMCLrpglxS8Dyw)"
Content-language: zh-CN
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?
Thread-index: AQHMgjl58MaBPbTLN0ykbFrwIKf11JVrFaoAgAgxL0CAB+3UAA==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <201110040004.p94048u7009531@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <EF5EF2B13ED09B4F871D9A0DBCA463C216CD8BC2@TK5EX14MBXC300.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "l3vpn@ietf.org" <l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:48:04 -0000
There is a mistake that I should correct. That is Data Center Mobility (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility) still uses L2 overlay (i.e., MAC-based forwarding ) to connect VMs which are belong to the same subnet, and host routes are only used for inter-subnet communication. Best regards, Xiaohu 发件人: Xuxiaohu 发送时间: 2011年10月9日 10:45 收件人: 'Murari Sridharan'; Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org 抄送: l2vpn@ietf.org; 'l3vpn@ietf.org' 主题: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? It is a good question. IMHO, It’s absolutely possible to realize network virtualization in a data center or across multiple data centers by using L3 overlay, especially host route based IP-only L2VPN service. Host route based IP-only L2VPN service could also allow the hosts within a give VPN instance to act as if they were located within a subnet/LAN except that only IP traffic is supported. Compared to those MAC forwarding based L2VPN services (i.e., L2 overlay) such as VPLS, host route based IP-only L2VPN service does seem a bit restrictive since those legacy non-IP applications (e.g., link-local multicast, non-IP unicast) would not be supported. However, host based IP-only L2VPN service has many unique and charming advantages in addressing the scaling issues that today’s cloud data centers are facing, such as ARP broadcast storm reduction, unknown unicast flooding avoidance, MAC table reduction on CE switches, active-active DC exit and ARP table reduction on DC exit routers... Examples of such approach are: Virtual Subnet (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-virtual-subnet-06) Data Center Mobility (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility) VL2(http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=80693) Best regards, Xiaohu 发件人: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Murari Sridharan 发送时间: 2011年10月4日 12:43 收件人: Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org 主题: Re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? Why are we restricting the discussion to just L2 overlays? The virtual topology can be L3 as well. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Thomas Narten Sent: 10/3/2011 7:04 PM To: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? FYI, a discussion of sorts started on the L2VPN list as to whether L2 overlays as proposed for this list are already in-scope for the L2VPN WG. I.e., see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg02874.html Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3