I think that the Charter should have some text to identify the key differences between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN. If the key differences aren't properly described, all the protocols developed for L2VPN and L3VPN will pop up as potential solutions.
Here are some key differences I see: - Majority of VMs (or End-Systems) do communicate with external peers, even though their volume may not be large. Most external peers access their VMs (or End-Systems) in Data Centers via internet or IP network until packets reach the Data Center gateway. - Majority of VMs are end systems, vs. nodes in L2VPN/L3VPN are not. Linda Dunbar > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart Bryant > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:58 AM > To: n...@ietf.org > Cc: i...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - > 23-Apr-2012 update > > Based on the list discussion, I have updated the draft NVO3 > charter to take into consideration the feedback received > so far. > > - Stewart > > > NVO3: Network Virtualization Over Layer 3 > > Chairs - TBD > Area - Routing > Area Director - Stewart Bryant > INT Area Adviser - TBD > OPS Area Adviser - TBD > > Support for multi-tenancy has become a core requirement of data centers > (DCs), especially in the context of data centers supporting virtualized > hosts known as virtual machines (VMs). Two key requirements needed > to support multi-tenancy are traffic isolation, so that a tenant's > traffic is not visible to any other tenant, and address independence, > so that one tenant's addressing does not collide with other tenants > addressing schemes or with addresses used within the data center itself. > Another key requirement is to support the placement and migration of > VMs anywhere within the data center, without being limited by DC > network constraints such as the IP subnet boundaries of the > underlying DC network. > > An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data Center Virtual Private > Network (DCVPN)) is a VPN that is viable across a scaling range of > a few thousand VMs to several million VMs running on greater > than 100K physical servers. It thus has good scaling properties > from relatively small networks to networks with several million > DCVPN endpoints and hundreds of thousands of DCVPNs within a > single administrative domain. > > Note that although this charter uses the term VM throughout, NVO3 must > also support connectivity to traditional hosts e.g. hosts that do not > have hypervisors. > > NVO3 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy that reside at the > network layer rather than using traditional isolation mechanisms > that rely on the underlying layer 2 technology (e.g., VLANs). > The NVO3 WG will determine which types of service are needed by > typical > DC deployments (for example, IP and/or Ethernet). > > NVO3 will document the problem statement, the applicability, and an > architectural framework for DCVPNs within a data center > environment. Within this framework, functional blocks will be defined > to > allow the dynamic attachment / detachment of VMs to their DCVPN, > and the interconnection of elements of the DCVPNs over > the underlying physical network. This will support the delivery > of packets to the destination VM, and provide the network functions > required for the migration of VMs within the network in a > sub-second timeframe. > > Based on this framework, the NVO3 WG will develop requirements for both > control plane protocol(s) and data plane encapsulation format(s), and > perform a gap analysis of existing candidate mechanisms. In addition > to functional and architectural requirements, the NVO3 WG will develop > management, operational, maintenance, troubleshooting, security and > OAM protocol requirements. > > The NVO3 WG will investigate the interconnection of the DCVPNs > and their tenants with non-NVO3 IP network(s) to determine if > any specific work is needed. > > The NVO3 WG will write the following informational RFCs, which > must be substantially complete before rechartering can be > considered: > Problem Statement > Framework document > Control plane requirements document > Data plane requirements document > Operational Requirements > Gap Analysis > > Driven by the requirements and consistent with the gap analysis, > the NVO3 WG may request being rechartered to document solutions > consisting of one or more data plane encapsulations and > control plane protocols as applicable. Any documented solutions > will use existing IETF protocols if suitable. Otherwise, > the NVO3 WG may propose the development of new IETF protocols, > or the writing of an applicability statement for a non-IETF > protocol. > > If the WG anticipates the adoption of the technologies of > another SDO, such as the IEEE, as part of the solution, it > will liaise with that SDO to ensure the compatibility of > the approach. > > > Milestones: > > Dec 2012 Problem Statement submitted for IESG review > Dec 2012 Framework document submitted for IESG review > Dec 2012 Data plane requirements submitted for IESG review > Dec 2012 Operational Requirements submitted for IESG review > Mar 2012 Control plane requirements submitted for IESG review > Mar 2012 Gap Analysis submitted for IESG review > Apr 2012 Recharter or close Working Group >