On 25/04/2012 14:57, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A question in line.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Adrian
Farrel<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Hi Linda,
Respect your advice. However, some wording in the proposed charter are too
ambiguous, is it the intent?
For example:
"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."
Do you mean "one VPN across a scaling range of million VMs"? or many VPNs
combined to scale range of million VMs?
I don't find the text ambiguous at all. You might disagree with what it says ("a
VPN"), but you can't claim it is ambiguous.
Another example:
"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)"
"network layer" can mean different things to different people. Why not simply
say "NV03 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy which do not rely on Layer
2
VLANs"?
There are also layers above the network layer. The charter rules them out of
scope. This is good.
Stewart has clarified that "network layer" includes IP and MPLS, and that it is
the bit of the hourglass that we all know as the network layer.
The charter talks about
The NVO3 WG will determine which types of service are needed by
typical
DC deployments (for example, IP and/or Ethernet).
I generally think of Ethernet as being Layer 2. Does this charter
envision Ethernet as being part of the
network layer? What was intended with having it mentioned there?
Regards
Marshall
Hi Marshall
The client VMs *may* need to talk Ethernet to their peers, but it is
intended that VPNs that convey the client packets will run over the
network layer i.e. IP and or MPLS.
Stewart