IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 17 February 2012 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 E045221E808B for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:49:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ApjS+4SSNSc5 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:49:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152B621E8039 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26462 invoked by uid 399); 17 Feb 2012 16:49:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.28.249.110) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 17 Feb 2012 16:49:35 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 83.28.249.110
Message-ID: <4F3E851F.6060604@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:49:35 +0100
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <201202171451.q1HEptR3027370@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>, <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70661A@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5E613872-0E27-46D2-8097-B31E7F0F37C5@mimectl> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70669D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70669D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "narten@us.ibm.com" <narten@us.ibm.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "david.black@emc.com" <david.black@emc.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>, Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
List-Id: "L2 \"Network Virtualization Over l3\" overlay discussion list \(nvo3\)" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:49:38 -0000

Hi John,

> [JD]  This is an assertion.  It is also the misses the fact that MPLS
> is only required to mux/demux packets at the edges of the VPN
> network.

Let me observe that at least in some data centers the "edge of VPN" is 
likely to be the hypervisor (with OVS) on the host machine. The reason 
being that VMs residing on such host may belong to different customers.

Could you describe how existing technologies would work in such case ? 
Are you proposing to turn each host to be a PE ? Or are you worried that 
host has not sufficient forwarding power to act as PE so one would need 
a dedicated hardware to be a PE ?

Best regards,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email