Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:42:36 -0400

Marc,

    Let's not try to make something hard out of this.

    Janos suggested that certain statements made in your draft are not particularly
true (or applicable) if existing standard capabilties have been deployed.

    You responded (paraphrasing) that - while this is true - there are networks where
these capabilities are not part of the layer-2 deployment, and there are customers
who would prefer a layer-3 solution.

    So far, I have no gripe with this.

    However, Joel points out that the current wording makes it appear that the driving
justification for doing this work in layr-3 is that existing layer-2 standards/solutions
won't work.  He further points out that this is not consistent with your own admission
that there are well-known layer-2 standards/solutions that address the limitations you
list.

    Apparently, it was not your intent to make it sound this way.

    Without going line by line through the introduction, the general changes required
to bring what you are saying back into alignment with what we all apparently agree
is the case are relatively obvious and simple.

1) The simplest change would be to remove the statements about layer-2 limitations
    as Janos has suggested.  I think we all understand why perhaps this is not the
    way you want to go.  Fine.
2) If you are going to list the limitations that you now list, you need to make it clear
    these are "perceived" limitations based on currently deployed layer-2 networking
    technology, in some networks.
3) If one of the key reasons why we want to define a layer-3 solution is that there is
    a demand from customers for a layer-3 solution, simply say that rather than giving
    inaccurate second-hand information about "perceived" reasons for this preference
    based on out-of-date layer-2 deployments.

    Does this help?

--
Eric

---

From: AshwoodsmithPeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:33:59 +0000

Agreed, I think that stating that those limitiations apply to all "Existing virtual network models used for data center networks" is perhaps a bit sweeping and could use a bit of qualification otherwise its untrue.

Peter

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:43 PM
To: Marc Lasserre
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02

Marc,

    Does this help?

--
Eric

---

From: Paul Unbehagen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:18:02 -0600

I have personally seen numerous DC's deployed over the last year that have used SPB to create an end to end Ethernet underlay to solve many of the problems that nvo3 is also trying to fix with overlays.   VM's are moving across cities transparently to the IP layer above in both single and multi-tenant environments. 

Obviously some customers may want an overlay for other reasons, but Janos' points are correct.

Marc, perhaps if the text on Ethernet capabilities was updated to reflect what is possible today, it will clear up the confusion. 
--
Paul Unbehagen

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:33 PM, AshwoodsmithPeter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Agreed, I think that stating that those limitiations apply to all “Existing virtual network models used for data center networks” is  perhaps a bit sweeping and could use a bit of qualification otherwise its untrue.
>  
> Peter
>  
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3