I support the sentence below from Matthew which reads ³ The WG will determine whether an IP, and/or an emulated Ethernet service is needed to satisfy the needs of the typical data centre." because I just noticed that the latest charter is missing the following sentence that was in the charter Benson sent out after the BOF which read, ³This approach should provide an Ethernet service. It may provide an IP service; an important goal is to develop a "layer agnostic" framework and architecture meeting data center requirements.".
I agreed that keeping the architecture ³layer agnostic² is a very good idea to leave room for how DC networking may evolve in the future. A Layer 2 service may be needed now (at least for some applications), but layer 3 service may suffice for many applications and give benefits in terms of scale and/or simplification and/or interoperability. Lets not decide at the time of charter. - Larry On 4/20/12 4:31 AM, "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > How about the following changes to the paragraph below? The intention is to > clearly phrase the charter in terms of requirements work that the WG will do, > while at the same time scope the requirements we will work on, rather than > predicate any ultimate solutions. > > "NVO3 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy that use an > encapsulation header that resides at or above the network layer, rather than > relying on > traditional L2 isolation mechanisms (e.g., VLANs) to support > multi-tenancy. The WG will determine whether an IP, and/or an emulated > Ethernet service is needed to satisfy the needs of the typical data centre." > > Regards, > > Matthew > > > On 19/04/2012 16:24, "John E Drake" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David, >> >> I don¹t think you have the authority to change the words in the charter, >> which reads: >> >> ³It will also address requirements driven by cloud computing services and >> data centers as they apply to Layer-2 VPN services." >> >> Further, as I have told you and Thomas multiple times, a data center operator >> is not required to provide a certificate indicating they are a provider¹ >> before they are allowed to deploy L3/L2 VPN technology, and many large >> enterprise networks consider themselves to be service providers in their own >> right. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:17 AM >> To: John E Drake; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Nitin Bahadur; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [nvo3] NVO3 charter 1530UK 12April >> >> John, >> >> I think the potential ³data center² overlap with L2VPN can be resolved by >> carefully understanding the first text extract from L2VPN charter. I read >> the second sentence as implying a couple of crucial words in [square >> brackets]: >> >> "The L2VPN working group is responsible for defining and specifying a limited >> number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-2 Virtual >> Private Networks (L2VPNs). It will also address requirements driven by cloud >> computing services and data centers as they apply to [provider-provisioned] >> Layer-2 VPN services." >> >> >> We can split hairs over what ³provider² means, but I believe the primary >> distinction in initial focus is data center infrastructure vs. network >> carrier (provider) provisioning and operation of the overlay (or VPN if one >> wants to use that term). >> >> The following definition from RFC 4664, Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private >> Networks (L2VPNs), may also help in understanding the L2VPN WG¹s scope: >> >> The term "provider provisioned VPNs" refers to Virtual Private >> Networks (VPNs) for which the Service Provider (SP) participates in >> management and provisioning of the VPN. >> >> In this context, many data centers of importance to nvo3 (e.g., enterprise >> data centers) are not operated by the Service Provider, as the term is used >> in this RFC 4664 definition. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John >> E Drake >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:06 AM >> To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); Stewart Bryant; Kireeti Kompella >> Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Nitin Bahadur; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 charter 1530UK 12April >> >> Matthew, >> >> Snipped, comment inline. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> Why not just rephrase the paragraph so that it does not appear to prescribe >> protocol development, but rather scopes the solutions to those that the IETF >> traditionally deals with and that meet the requirements/gap analysis?: >> >> >> >> ³NVO3 will consider an approach to multi-tenancy that uses a Layer 3 >> encapsulation rather than relying on traditional L2 isolation mechanisms >> (e.g., VLANs) to support multi-tenancy, and consistent with a requirements >> gathering and gap analysis exercise. The approach will provide an emulated >> Ethernet service capable of satisfying typical data center deployments.² >> >> [JD] I also have a problem with the last sentence as it sounds as though >> NV03 will be encroaching on the charter of the L2VPN WG, which reads, in >> part: >> >> "The L2VPN working group is responsible for defining and specifying a limited >> number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-2 Virtual >> Private Networks (L2VPNs). It will also address requirements driven by cloud >> computing services and data centers as they apply to Layer-2 VPN services." >> >> And: >> >> "5. Ethernet VPN (E-VPN) - An enhanced Layer-2 service that emulates an >> Ethernet (V)LAN across a PSN. E-VPN supports load-sharing across multiple >> connections from a Layer-2 site to an L2VPN service. E-VPN is primarily >> targeted to support large-scale L2VPNs with resiliency requirements not >> satisfied by other L2VPN solutions." >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
