IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

<david.black@emc.com> Sat, 18 February 2012 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
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 CE19821F86D3 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:05:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Ah0-8ck9RXwL for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1696621F86C9 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q1I05tfq026753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:55 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:48 -0500
Received: from mxhub28.corp.emc.com (mxhub28.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.184]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q1I05loA008340; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:47 -0500
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.157]) by mxhub28.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.184]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:47 -0500
From: david.black@emc.com
To: robert@raszuk.net, igor@yahoo-inc.com
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:46 -0500
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
Thread-Index: AcztzfpoxFBepex2QaKHWQWoJAOvrgAAxX+a
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEB37B99@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3EE61C.8050102@raszuk.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: narten@us.ibm.com, nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:57 -0000

There was also interest expressed @ the Taipei L2VPN meeting in data center usage of SPB/PBB.  That's another potential reason to leave L2 over L2 in scope.

Thanks, --David +++ Sent from BlackBerry +++

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:robert@raszuk.net]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 06:43 PM
To: Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>; nvo3@ietf.org <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

Hi Igor,

While I agree that we should focus on L3 for transport I guess QinQ has 
some applicability for both traditional networks as well as OF based. I 
would keep it in the charter.

Best,
R.

> I think this is a great charter, but, do we really need to bother with L2
> over L2 type of overlays here? Does anybody actually plan on building
> something like that?
>
> -igor

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email