Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter

[Larry Kreeger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pat,

Thanks for educating me about VDP.  Based on what you wrote, it sounds like
it might indeed by useful for the VM attach/detach protocol.  One concern is
that you seem to say the VSI ID can be one of a list of things you mention
that sound promising, but can it support multiple of these?  For example,
the encap/decap device may want to know a Virtual Network's UUID and the
VM's MAC and the VM's IP.

Thanks, Larry


On 2/17/12 5:34 PM, "Pat Thaler" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
> 
>