Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

["Pat Thaler" <[e-mail]>]

VDP (in IEEE P802.1Qbg) does not assume that the VM is defined by a layer 2 "inner" address. It identifies a VSI by a VSI ID which can be an IP address (v4 or v6), MAC address, UUID (RFC 4122) or locally defined format. It can also carry filter information - several formats are currently defined for filter info - some of them have a 32-bit GroupID to cover the cases where a 12 bit VID isn't large enough to identify the virtual network. That was added based on the need to support a larger identifier when PBB was used, but it could serve for other 24 bit tenant identifiers.

VDP is a protocol that runs between the end system (e.g. a hypervisor) to an adjacent bridge so it serves to communicate from the end system to the device on the edge of the network that a VM is moving, but it doesn't cover how to propagate news of that move across the network. It might be a piece of the broader solution but it isn't a complete solution.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Larry Kreeger
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:22 PM
To: Yakov Rekhter; David Black
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

Yakov,

On 2/17/12 1:39 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dave,
> 
>> John,
<snip>
> Wrt the protocol that would allow to communicate the VM "move" to
> the network, I agree with you that it is indeed desirable. Having
> said this, should we consider the work going on now in IEEE on VDP ?

I'm not an expert on VDP, but my understanding is that (since it is IEEE),
it would only work for a layer 2 "inner" address.  Since we want the
protocol to be layer agnostic (i.e. also support L3 VM addresses), it would
need to be extended in some way...and it is not an IETF protocol to extend.