I too am uncomfortable with the wording regarding the IETF protocols.
It seems that we should be striving to choose the best technical
solution regardless of whether its an IETF protocol or that from another
SDO. This can, and should, be covered as part of the gap analysis.
Also, we should give preference to using existing suitable protocols
(IETF or from other SDOs) over development of new protocols.
Regards,
Joe Pelissier
-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:nvo3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Pat Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:55 PM
To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); nvo3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) -
25-Apr-2012 update
Stewart,
The charter is looking pretty good. I'd like to get on to the next
phase, but not with this text:
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.
There are two issues with this:
Is now the right time to be defining the boundaries on what we might
request being chartered next? Framework, requirements and gap analysis
drafts are still to be written. If we get to the end and find we need
something other than or in addition to a data plan encapsulation or
control plane protocol, would we not request it to be chartered? Surely
once the work is done.
Secondly, as this text got rewritten, it gives a preference for IETF
protocols over other protocols even if they are standards. There is a
part of the work where an IEEE 802.1 protocol, VDP, may turn out to be
suitable. Obviously any IETF protocols that are also suitable should be
considered but not to the exclusion of consideration for an IEEE
protocol.
Presumably there is always a preference for using existing protocol if
suitable rather than inventing new. It seems unnecessary to state that -
when the time comes, we will debate what is suitable anyway.
Therefore, at least " 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." should be deleted.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:nvo3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:39 PM
To: nvo3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) -
25-Apr-2012 update
This version of the NVO3 charter reflects the discussions on the list
and comments received as of this afternoon.
I propose to take this to the IESG for their second review tomorrow.
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). Three key requirements needed to
support multi-tenancy are:
o Traffic isolation, so that a tenant's traffic is not visible to
any other tenant, and
o Address independence, so that one tenant's addressing scheme does
not collide with other tenant's addressing schemes or with
addresses
used within the data center itself.
o 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 one hundred
thousand 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.
A DCVPN also supports VM migration between physical servers in a
sub-second timeframe.
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 connectivity services 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
within the scaling and migration limits described above.
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 have
completed Working Group Last Call 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
non-IETF protocols.
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 2013 Control plane requirements submitted for IESG
review Mar 2013 Gap Analysis submitted for IESG review Apr 2013
Recharter or close Working Group
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3