Subject: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment -

From: Edwin Mallette <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:50:44 +0200

Hi authors, all,

I was reviewing this document and I noted an assumption made that (while
technically true, I don¹t really know but it sounds like it might be true :)
might not be a good or safe assumption based on some implementations that
are almost entirely not the case described here:

1.2  Target Scenarios  last paragraphŠ
"In the majority of cases, a VM will be acting as a simple host that will
have a single TSI and single MAC and IP visible to the external NVE.²

I¹m not quite sure why this is pertinent per se.  These requirements should
clearly account for both highly connected VMs (and implementations that are
90+% that case) and the non-highly connected VMs.  Please let me know if I¹m
not quite thinking about this the right way.

Cheers!

Ed

---

From: Liyizhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:13:25 +0000

Hi Ed,

Thank you for your review. The sentence you quoted tries to explain the requirement to disassociate all (meaning more than one) addresses given owning single address per VM is pretty common. It has no assumption on if VMs are or are not highly   connected.

My feeling is to make the logic clearer, it would be better to put it before "In the Split-NVE architecture, the external NVE may be able to reach multiple MAC and IP addresses via a TSI."

Thanks,
Yizhou

From: nvo3 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Edwin Mallette
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment -

Hi authors, all,

I was reviewing this document and I noted an assumption made that (while technically true, I don't really know but it sounds like it might be true :) might not be a good or safe assumption based on some implementations that are almost entirely not the case described here:

1.2  Target Scenarios - last paragraph...
"In the majority of cases, a VM will be acting as a simple host that will have a single TSI and single MAC and IP visible to the external NVE."

I'm not quite sure why this is pertinent per se.  These requirements should clearly account for both highly connected VMs (and implementations that are 90+% that case) and the non-highly connected VMs.  Please let me know if I'm not quite thinking about this the right way.

Cheers!

Ed

---

From: Edwin Mallette <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:24:20 +0200

Hi Yizhou

Thanks for your quick responseŠ When thinking about control plane scale, I
personally want to steer clear of any assumptions that an environment
consists of single IP and MAC per NVE<>TSI broadly and then end up without
the CP scale needed to support an environment that connects numerous VNs,
IPs and MACs per VMs.   I do think your suggestion would help.

Ed

From:  Liyizhou <[email-masked]>
Date:  Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 2:13 PM
To:  Edwin Mallette <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment -

Hi Ed,
 
Thank you for your review. The sentence you quoted tries to explain the
requirement to disassociate all (meaning more than one) addresses given
owning single address per VM is pretty common. It has no assumption on if
VMs are or are not highly   connected.
 
My feeling is to make the logic clearer, it would be better to put it before
³In the Split-NVE architecture, the external NVE may be able to reach
multiple MAC and IP addresses via a TSI.²
 
Thanks,
Yizhou

Hi authors, all,

Cheers!

Ed

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:43:38 +0000

Hi Ed,

I agree with Yizhou that this sentence doesn't exclude anything.

If the sentence were rephrased as "In the simplest case, ..." instead of "In the majority of cases, ..." that would still make the point and mitigate the concern about inclusion of more complex cases (which are definitely included).

Thanks, --David

From: nvo3 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Liyizhou
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:13 AM
To: Edwin Mallette; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment -

Hi Ed,

Thanks,
Yizhou

From: nvo3 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Edwin Mallette
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:51 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-04 Comment -

Hi authors, all,

Cheers!

Ed