|
AB, Thanks for the review. David> Comments inline ... Thanks, --David From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
Review for the document as per your request. I would like to thanks the authors and the WG for this work. In general this document is about data centres DCs, and using IP architecture, so this document is an architecture of the overlays above such network purpose. The management among both architectures is very essential for the best DC performance.
The IP architecture is implemented in the network infrastructure but the NVO3 architecture is a Software Defined Network SDN architecture. Furthermore, DC virtualization has many advantages but increases complexity in all standard design. However, the draft needs
more defining of the connection between the both architectures (i.e, implemented and software-defined) needs to be clarified in terms of interactions in both planes (data and control). My comments are as below, and suggestions are with the AB sign:- Comment-1 The approach of the document needs to be more clear, as mentioned in the introduction:- introduction> It should be possible to build and implement individual components in isolation and have them work with other components with no changes to other components. AB>amend> It should be possible to standardize and implement individual components in isolation and have them work with other components with no changes
to other components. David> That would be incorrect, as many components (e.g., NVAs) can be expected to have additional non-standard protocol (and other)
interfaces beyond those specified by the NVO3 standardization activity. The focus of NVO3 standardization is specific protocols that interface between components, see Section 13 of the draft. introduction> This document differs from the
framework document in that it doesn’t attempt to cover all possible approaches within the general design space. Rather, it describes one particular approach. AB> The introduction needs to answer:- Why you are having one such approach as mentioned above? AB> If this document is for special approach, this needs to be for special use case which needs to be mentioned in title,
because just saying '' an architecture'' is not clear. David> This is where the NVO3 WG chose to focus. I’ll add mention of that to the introduction. Comment-2 AB> When defining an architecture we need to define all general components, connections, protocols, frames/packets,
and services. VN and NV are explained used in this document, but still not well defined in terms of requirements, design-approaches, and network programming. The document does not define general/special nodes, links, and interfaces of such virtualized networks
per control-data (d/c) plane approach. The document does not include virtual DCs and SANs in the definitions. However, looking into other documents under progress worked by the NVO3-WG, it is recommended that this architecture document should be referencing
such work in progress. David> Please suggest references. Comment-3 The document needs to clarify the NVO3 architecture is it centralised, distributed, or hierarchical distributed for
each d/c plane. David> That’s not necessary, as all three structures are possible, particularly for the control plane. Comment-4 How to identify each VM and configure its policy. or how to identify virtual DCs which have SAN and LAN. How to configure,
Links that have LAN traffic and links that have SAN traffic, and links that do both traffic.
Is it using VN tagging only? David> VM configuration is handled by the VM Orchestration System - see Section 3.4.
David> Virtual DCs are not part of the NVO3 architecture. David> Traffic identification is handled by VN identification via a Context ID. This could be clearer - while Section 3
already indicates that the Context ID serves this purpose, I’ll also add text to item 4 in section 4.3 to indicate that VN identification is the purpose of the Context ID. comment-5 Virtualization is for security, but why the nvo3-architecture addresses are using MAC and IP which is not good for security. Also this node
identification was not mentioned in security consideration. David> Virtualization is for much more than security, please see RFC 7364 (Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization).
The key identifier for NVO3 security is the virtual network identifier, as opposed to node identifiers such as MAC and IP. There’s also a good discussion of security requirements in this area in the NVO3 Framework (RFC 7365) - I’ll add a reference to that
discussion rather than repeat it here. Comment-6 The ip architecture underlying needs to include IPv4 and/or IPv6, in one section you mention TTL which is only for IPv4, but what about IPv6. David> Definitely a problem - that’s section 3.1.2, and it will be corrected. Thanks for noticing! comment-7 Figure 1 must show the TSI as it showed the TS!! David> Figure 1 says that it is “Generic” - that figure is aligned with RFC 7365, and TSI is clearly defined in Section
2. It would be better to retain commonality with RFC 7365. Figure 1 should say: L3 overlay networks, instead of: L3 overlay network, or mentioning that there may be VNs and NVDs. Also to show local
and remote TSs and remote NVE. David> The L3 overlay network supports multiple Virtual Networks (which may provide L2 or L3 service), so singular “network”
is correct. David> What are NVDs? That term is not used in this draft. comment-8 section 3.1.1> To provide complete virtualization the network should provide similar properties to the computing layer. The
network infrastructure should be able to support arbitrary network topologies and addressing schemes. Each tenant should have the ability to configure both the computing nodes and the network simultaneously. AB> IPv6 cannot be used by the VMs of
a tenant if the underlying physical forwarding devices support only IPv4. The section should be clear about this issue. David> Actually, IPv6 can be used in that case. NVO3 is one of a number of technologies that are capable of encapsulating
IPv6 in IPv4. comment-9 section 3.1.1> Just as in the case with ports on Ethernet switches, a number of settings could be imagined. AB> why use the word, imagined. I suggest to change it. David> Ok, will change “could be imagined” to “are possible”
comment-10 In security section, it was not taken consideration/recommendation of using the IPsec technology, why. David> It’s one of a number of possible ways to address the security requirements - I’ll add mention of it as an example
with a reference to RFC 4301. Editorial comments: draft>Tenant System Identifier
AB> amend> Tenant System Interface
David> That’s an embarrassing lapse, thanks for finding it, fixed.
draft>Domains be funneled through a particular device AB> amend> Domains be Tunneled through a particular device
David> “funnelled” is correct in this context, “tunnelled” would be incorrect (e.g., tunnels may hide traffic from a firewall).
draft>Packets
AB>Change to>
NVO3 packets
David> A global change to “NVO3 packets” will likely detract from clarity, so that seems like a bad idea. Are there specific instances that should
be changed?
AB> You mention also TS packets. so that TS packet could be any protocol packet.
David> It’s mentioned once, I’ll remove the “TS’ to change that instance to just “packets”
Thank you, and sorry for the late submit of the date 12 August, it was due to many electricity breaks. best regards AB kk On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:06 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
|