Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Benson,

IMHO, the description of the type of DCVPN to be addressed by NVO3 should be in the first paragraph. What you had in paragraphs 3&4 are  the deliverables by NVO3.

It is not clear what does the term “within or between  DCVPN”  mean in Don’s proposal of “address providing both Layer 2 and Layer 3 Services within and between DCVPNs” within and between DCVPNs”.

Linda

From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:08 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion

Hi, Linda.

I think we captured the same idea in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the proposed charter. (See http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/nvo3/charter-ietf-nvo3-01-rev-20140808.txt for reference.) Are you suggesting that we also add those ideas to the first paragraph? I think that could be a good idea, but I'd like to do it in a concise way.

If so, could you please look at the text from Don Fedyk (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Z_vhgIF_rWz92VxuuZ1pMXjfaUo) and suggest how to improve it with these ideas?

Thanks,
-Benson




On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Benson,

I like your elaboration: a specific type of DCVPN: overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane.
It would be great if this explanation can be included in the Charter, something like:


“An NVO3 solution is to address a specific type of Data Center Virtual Private Network (DCVPN) that is overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane. The NVO3 WG will develop a set of protocols and/or protocol extensions that address the issues
described by draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement consistent with the
approach described by draft-ietf-nvo3-framework.”

Linda



From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:57 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion

Hi, Linda.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
The proposed charter is so general that there is not much to pick on. Yes, you have done a great job drafting it.

I'm not sure if you're serious, or teasing me / being sarcastic, but either way I guess it puts a smile on my face. ;)

 So the NVO3 is now DCVPN? Since the underlay is IP, will it become another L3VPN?

Somebody else asked me a similar question privately, so I want to make sure it's clear...

The term "NVO3" refers to a working group. The term "DCVPN" refers to the category of solutions for providing multi-tenancy, etc in a DC environment. There are possibly many technical approaches to designing a DCVPN. Some of those approaches might be based on protocols like BGP, MPLS, etc, which are developed in other WGs. As proposed in the new charter, NVO3 does not own the scope / charter for all work on DCVPNs. Rather, the proposed NVO3 charter is meant to narrow our focus to a specific type of DCVPN: overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane.

That being said, is that not clear from the text that we proposed? Is there some specific way that it could be improved?

Cheers,
-Benson