Subject: [nvo3] Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Requirements posted

From: Larry Kreeger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:40:36 -0800

To: nvo3 mailing list
Bcc: l2vpn, l3vpn, dc, armd, vpn4dc mailing lists

Hi everyone,

I have recently posted a first draft of the Control Plane requirements for
Network Virtualization Overlays.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00.txt

This draft is a follow-up to draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01
( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01
) which makes the case for overlay networks in data centers (not restricted
to L2 over L3) and the need for control plane solutions.

If you have not read draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01, I
highly suggest reading it first because the posted control plane reqs
document picks up where it left off.

Since the posted draft is a followup to
draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01 , and there is already an
NVO3 mailing list, please join and post any discussion and/or comments to
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Thank you,
Larry Kreeger

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:53:06 -0600

Hi Larry,

There is no references section in this draft, even though it does have
a reference?
Why was not this I-D submitted to dc?

Regards,

Behcet

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Larry Kreeger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Larry Kreeger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:28:53 -0800

Hi Behcet,

I did try to send an email to the dc list about the draft as a BCC, but
since it was a BCC, it was sent to the moderator for approval.  When I saw
it hadn't been approved today, I went ahead and sent it directly, so
everyone on the dc list should now be aware of it.

I have no great excuse for why I didn't add a references section, except
that I'm just learning the xml tool and was having problems getting the
references generated, so I figured I would figure it out in a later
revision.

 - Larry

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:22 -0500

> Why was not this I-D submitted to dc?

I believe that the NVO3 effort, while related to 'dc', is separate
enough and scoped out enough that it shouldn't be part of 'dc'.

To me DC is a mailing list in search of a problem. 

In the case of both SDN and NVO3, I believe the efforts have done a
reasonable first cut at trying to carve out a specific problem area
that can stand on its own. By that, I mean can try to create a WG
based on a focused charter. Yes, both efforts still have work to do
before they can become WGs (if that is what eventually happens). And
yes, both efforts *relate* to data centers. But the way of the IETF is
to carve out self-contained WGs rather than trying to boil the ocean
in a big general area. If DC is ever to be successful, it needs to
tease out some concrete problems, with those individual problems at
some point leading to a focused WG. And such a WG would not be the "DC
WG", but a WG focussed on a much narrower problem.

But outside of SDN and NVO3, the DC "area" seems to be struggling with
coming up with concrete problems that the IETF should work on.

Thomas