Subject: [nvo3] draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as nvo3 WG documen

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:52:52 -0800

Matthew and Benson,

This is to repeat *for the third time* the request by the authors of
draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt to ask nvo3 WG to accept 
draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as an nvo3 WG document.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:39:24 -0800
From:    Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To:      <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc:      [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], rshekhar@juniper
	  .net,
	 [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as nvo3 WG documen

Matthew and Benson,

This is to repeat the request by the authors of 
draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt to ask nvo3 WG to accept 
draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as an nvo3 WG document.

Yakov.
- ------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:23:25 -0700
From:    Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To:      <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc:      [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], rshekhar@juniper
	  .net,
	 [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as nvo3 WG documen
	  t

Matthew and Benson,

The authors of draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt would
like to ask nvo3 WG to accept draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt
as an nvo3 WG document.

Yakov.
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

- ------- End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:02:08 -0500

Yakov,

Actually, the chairs did respond to your first request. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg01764.html.

The one response to this I see in the archive said:

> > Can you and/or your co-authors please comment on the following two 
> > questions: 1. How does the draft apply to our charter and milestones?
> 
> WH> it addresses the following part of the charter:
> 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.

This seems like a pretty weak justification to me. Not every document
related to VM migration will automatically be in scope as an NVO3 WG
document. IMO, this document by itself doesn't really make sense as a
standalone WG document.

The document is pretty short. If you skip the definitions/background,
the "meat" seems to be section 3.4. This section covers ground that
the problem statement covers (though could be expanded on, i.e., to
explicitly also mention the case of in-bound traffic). I.e., see
section 3.7. (And note that the issue can occur within a single data
center, you don't need to have a virtual network span multiple data
centers as your document seems to focus on.)

My suggestion would be to have the problem statement expand section
3.7 to explicitly cover both the ingress and egress cases.

Thomas

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:03:05 +0000

Thomas,

Besides optimal routing that is covered in section 3.4, the draft also
talks about layer-2 extension and differentiation between VLANs and
VLAN-Ids - sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Although section 3.5 may be obvious
but it is worth to be noted as well.

Also, this draft talks about the presence of these mobility issues not
just for intra-DC but also for inter-DC scenarios (and furthermore
inter-AS). 

I either don't see these mobility issues been covered in the problem
statement draft or if they have been covered not to this extent. Although
you may have a concern regarding proliferation of additional drafts;
however, at the same time we don't want to impede the progress either.

So, if it is decided to merge this draft with problem statement draft,
then the coverage in problem statement draft should be to the same extent
as this one. Since Yakov is the primary author of this draft, I'd like to
hear his take.

Cheers,
Ali

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:46:11 +0000

In addition, if merging the drafts, the "merged draft" will need several extra sections to describe Layer 2 extension, Layer 2 closed user groups, the communications within Closed User Groups, and the communication between the Closed User Groups. 

With those sections added, extra text has to devoted to differentiate the Layer 2 context from the original Layer 3 focused discussion. As of now the draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement is very Layer 3 focused. 

Linda Dunbar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:03 PM
> To: Thomas Narten; Yakov Rekhter
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Linda
> Dunbar; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; wim.henderickx@alcatel-
> lucent.com; Luyuan Fang (lufang)
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as
> nvo3 WG documen
> 
> 
> Thomas,
>