[nvo3] Question on the mapping between VAP and VNI
<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> Tue, 26 November 2019 06:16 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A568120A33 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJ4XoIi72MAz for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197A1120EFC for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id ACEA1AA3876C0560C589; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:16:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id xAQ6FH8d003421; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:15:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:15:17 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:15:17 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd5ddcc2f55cebe34e
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201911261415177003271@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn xAQ6FH8d003421
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/DHFErBi3Xlv5u3OT1peETPZXb4E>
Subject: [nvo3] Question on the mapping between VAP and VNI
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:16:11 -0000
Dear NVO3 Architecture Authors, Many thanks to the well defined NVO3 architecture. I have a question on the mapping between VAP and VNI at one NVE, is it a 1-to-1 mapping or N-to-1 mapping? In other words, is the following figure which is derived from Figure 2 of RFC8014 reasonable? | Underlay Network (IP) | | | +---------------------------------------+ | | | Tunnel Overlay | +------------+---------+ +---------+------------+ | +----------+-------+ | | +-------+----------+ | | | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | | | +---------+--------+ | | +---------+--------+ | | | | | | | NVE1 | | | | | | NVE2 | +--------+-------+ | | +--------+-------+ | | |VNI1 VNI1 | | | | VNI1 VNI1 | | | +-+-----------+--+ | | +-+-----------+--+ | |VAP1| |VAP2 | |VAP3| |VAP4 | +----+-----------+-----+ +----+-----------+-----+ | | | | -------+-----------+------------------+-----------+-------- | | Tenant | | ( ' ) ( ' ) ( ' ) ( ' ) (Ethernet) (IP Routing) (Ethernet) (IP Routing) ( _ ) ( _ ) ( _ ) ( _ ) | | | | TSI1| |TSI2 TSI3| |TSI4 +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |TS1| |TS2| |TS3| |TS4| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+