Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shane,

I agree.

Gateways to convert from one encaps to other may not be an ideal solution,
though the edge devices currently do some form of gateway functionality for
most purposes.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Shane Amante <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Lucy yong <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I am not auguring if NVO3 should support different data encapsulations.
> I question that the proposed solution is proper in a mp2mp situation. Using
> a gateway for this case is much simpler, which can still be done in a
> single control plane.
>
> Actually, I strongly disagree with the assertion that "using a gateway for
> this case is much simpler".  We (operators) build networks to scale by
> pushing as much functionality to the EDGE of the network, as possible.  If
> you mandate a GW be used as a converter that becomes a capacity planning
> headache, you have to worry about it's resiliency (fail-over), etc.  Do not
> go there.
>
> -shane
>
>
> > However, in NVO3, encapsulation is done at NVE not end system, right? I
> don't know the intention of your second sentence.
> >
> > Lucy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:10 PM
> > To: Lucy yong
> > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> >
> >
> >       There is definitely a requirement to do different encapsulations
> simultaneously. There is even support coming from NIC vendors to support
> multiple VMs with different encapsulations at the same time.
> >
> >       --Tom
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2012:1:18 PM, at 1:18 PM, Lucy yong <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kreeti,
> >>
> >> Regarding interworking capability, Is "a given EVI can support multiple
> data plane encapsulation" equivalent to say "individual NVEs need to
> support multiple encapsulation schemas"? If one NVE only supports VXLAN and
> another NVE only supports MPLS-in-GRE, two will not able to work in a same
> EVI, is that right? Will this give more benefit than having one
> encapsulation in an EVI or make more complex?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Lucy
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:18 PM
> >> To: Lucy yong
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> >>
> >> Hi Lucy,
> >>
> >> On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Lucy yong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Read this draft.
> >>>
> >>> RFC5512 applies a case where two BGP speakers are in a BGP free core.
> Using encapsulation tunnel between two speakers enables one speaker to send
> a packet to another speaker as the next-hop.
> >>>
> >>> Using this approach in nvo3 may rise a high scalability concern
> because any pair of NVEs in an NVO will need to maintain a state for the
> tunnel encapsulation.
> >>
> >> They would have to in any case.  The tunnel encap is a couple of bits;
> the "tenant id" is also needed.
> >>
> >>> If some NVEs support VXLAN and some support NVGRE, to build mcast tree
> for BUM, it has to build two distinct sub-trees for each, which is more
> complex.
> >>>
> >>> "This memo specifies that an egress PE must use the sender MAC
> >>> address to determine whether to send a received Broadcast or
> >>> Multicast packet to a given Ethernet Segment.  I.e., if the sender
> >>> MAC address is associated with a given Ethernet Segment, the egress
> >>> PE must not send the packet to that Ethernet Segment."
> >>>
> >>> Does it mean using BGP to exchange NVE MAC address that belong to an
> Ethernet segment first? How does this impact other evpn features?
> >>
> >> Yes to the first question; not at all (imo) to the second.
> >>
> >>> This needs to be cooked more.
> >>
> >> I think it's pretty well cooked, although I must confess a predilection
> for sushi.  In effect, these very capable authors saved me the trouble of
> writing pretty much the same draft :-)
> >>
> >> The only thing I would change is the draft name: I prefer
> "...-nvo3-l2-in-l3-control-plane".  Oh, and add a code point for STT :-)
> >>
> >> Kireeti
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Lucy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Aldrin Isaac
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:18 PM
> >>> To: Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)
> >>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure that the dust has fully settled on the matter.
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-07 suggests
> >>> the use of XMPP.  The question is whether there is any sound technical
> >>> reason (versus preferences) why leveraging BGP is problematic.  I
> >>> personally haven't heard a convincing argument.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>> May be I missing something here .. but does this suggest running
> BGP-EVPN
> >>>> on the NVE
> >>>> that is located in the hypervisor?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dimitri
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/17/12 8:55 AM, "Thomas Nadeau" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   A number of us just published this draft and wanted to bring it to
> the
> >>>>> NVO3 WG's attention.  We will be presenting/discussing this draft at
> the
> >>>>> interim meeting this week as well, but please discuss here on the
> list as
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   Tom, John, et al
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane-00.txt
> >>>>> has been successfully submitted by Thomas D. Nadeau and posted to the
> >>>>> IETF repository.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Filename:       draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> >>>>> Revision:       00
> >>>>> Title:          A Control Plane for Network Virtualized Overlays
> >>>>> Creation date:  2012-09-16
> >>>>> WG ID:          Individual Submission
> >>>>> Number of pages: 12
> >>>>> URL:
> >>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane-00
> >>>>> .txt
> >>>>> Status:
> >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane
> >>>>> Htmlized:
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drake-nvo3-evpn-control-plane-00
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Abstract:
> >>>>>   The purpose of this document is to describe how Ethernet Virtual
> >>>>>   Private Network (E-VPN) can be used as the control plane for
> >>>>>   Network Virtual Overlays.  Currently this protocol is defined to
> >>>>>   act as the control plane for Virtual Extensible Local Area
> >>>>>   Network (VXLAN), Network Virtualization using Generic Routing
> >>>>>   Encapsulation (NVGRE), MPLS or VLANs while maintaining their
> >>>>>   existing data plane encapsulations. The intent is that this
> >>>>>   protocol will be capable of extensions in the future to handle
> >>>>>   additinal data plane encapsulations and functions as needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> nvo3 mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nvo3 mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nvo3 mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nvo3 mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nvo3 mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>