Virtual Machine Mobility Solutions for L2 and L3 Overlay Networks
draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-12-19
|
16 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from I-D Exists |
2020-11-16
|
16 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to I-D Exists from AD Evaluation |
2020-09-29
|
16 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is appropriate as the draft describes how existing protocols/procedures can operate in an NVO3 environment when virtual machines move e.g. from one NVE to another to minimise the impact of the move. It does not define new protocols or require new code points or registries, or specify specific best practices. The intended status is properly indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes virtual machine (VM) mobility solutions commonly used in data centers built with an overlay network. This document is intended for describing the solutions and the impact of moving VMs, or applications, from one rack to another connected by the overlay network. For layer 2, it is based on using an NVA (Network Virtualization Authority) to NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) protocol to update ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) tables or neighbor cache entries after a VM moves from an old NVE to a new NVE. For Layer 3, it is based on address and connection migration after the move. Working Group Summary The document was developed to address the need to describe how virtual machine mobility operates in the context of an NVO3 architecture. The networking aspects of VM mobility are a particular challenge in existing datacenter networks, and teer wa a desire to address these with the move to virtualised overlay networks. Note that the draft is limited to the scope of NVO3. VM mobility is a much wider issue, so the draft does not cover aspects outside of NVO3's charter. However, there are aspects of operations and transport that affect it and so reviews by the OpsArea and TSVART were sought. The TSVART review in particular generated considerable debate with the authors. The majority of these comments were resolved. There are no IPR declarations on the draft . Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years, as well as receiving RTG, Ops, and transport area reviews. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com). (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed several versions of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 15. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of years. As mentioned above, it has also been reviewed by the RTGDir, OPSDir and TSVART. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No further review required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Theer are no IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. There were no objections during last call. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No appeals threatened. The chair did receive some private objections from one of the authors that were related to non-technical changes made as a result of the TSVART review. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ID-Nits passes except for one waring about excess white space on line 565. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document updates RFC4761. The update is required because the draft presents some changes to the multi-homing procedures in RFC4761. The update is properly indicated and it is obvious form the draft text where changes to 4761 are required to support the mechanisms in this draft. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Theer are no requests made of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are no new IANA registries required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2020-06-18
|
16 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is appropriate as the draft describes how existing protocols/procedures can operate in an NVO3 environment when virtual machines move e.g. from one NVE to another to minimise the impact of the move. It does not define new protocols or require new code points or registries, or specify specific best practices. The intended status is properly indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes virtual machine (VM) mobility solutions commonly used in data centers built with an overlay network. This document is intended for describing the solutions and the impact of moving VMs, or applications, from one rack to another connected by the overlay network. For layer 2, it is based on using an NVA (Network Virtualization Authority) to NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) protocol to update ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) tables or neighbor cache entries after a VM moves from an old NVE to a new NVE. For Layer 3, it is based on address and connection migration after the move. Working Group Summary The document was developed to address the need to describe how virtual machine mobility operates in the context of an NVO3 architecture. The networking aspects of VM mobility are a particular challenge in existing datacenter networks, and teer wa a desire to address these with the move to virtualised overlay networks. Note that the draft is limited to the scope of NVO3. VM mobility is a much wider issue, so the draft does not cover aspects outside of NVO3's charter. However, there are aspects of operations and transport that affect it and so reviews by the OpsArea and TSVART were sought. The TSVART review in particular generated considerable debate with the authors. The majority of these comments were resolved. There are no IPR declarations on the draft . Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years, as well as receiving RTG, Ops, and transport area reviews. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com). (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed several versions of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 15. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of years. As mentioned above, it has also been reviewed by the RTGDir, OPSDir and TSVART. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No further review required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Theer are no IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. There were no objections during last call. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No appeals threatened. The chair did receive some private objections from one of the authors that were related to non-technical changes made as a result of the TSVART review. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ID-Nits passes except for one waring about excess white space on line 565. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document updates RFC4761. The update is required because the draft presents some changes to the multi-homing procedures in RFC4761. The update is properly indicated and it is obvious form the draft text where changes to 4761 are required to support the mechanisms in this draft. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Theer are no requests made of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are no new IANA registries required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2020-06-17
|
16 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-16.txt |
2020-06-17
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-17
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Saumya Dikshit , Tom Herbert , Linda Dunbar , Behcet Sarikaya , Bhumip Khasnabish |
2020-06-17
|
16 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-15
|
15 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-15.txt |
2020-06-15
|
15 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-06-15
|
15 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-01
|
14 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-14.txt |
2020-04-01
|
14 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-04-01
|
14 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-01
|
13 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-13.txt |
2020-04-01
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-04-01
|
13 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-30
|
12 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-12.txt |
2020-03-30
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-03-30
|
12 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-30
|
11 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-11.txt |
2020-03-30
|
11 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-03-30
|
11 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-27
|
10 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-10.txt |
2020-03-27
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-03-27
|
10 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-26
|
09 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-09.txt |
2020-03-26
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-03-26
|
09 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-26
|
08 | Martin Vigoureux | Intended Status changed to Informational from Best Current Practice |
2020-03-25
|
08 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-08.txt |
2020-03-25
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-03-25
|
08 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-21
|
07 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-07.txt |
2020-02-21
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2020-02-21
|
07 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-18
|
06 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-06.txt |
2019-11-18
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Linda Dunbar) |
2019-11-18
|
06 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-06
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2019-11-06
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2019-08-22
|
05 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-05.txt |
2019-08-22
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-22
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Linda Dunbar , Tom Herbert , Behcet Sarikaya , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Bhumip Khasnabish , Saumya Dikshit |
2019-08-22
|
05 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-10
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-03
|
04 | Bob Briscoe | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Bob Briscoe. Sent review to list. |
2018-08-17
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Bob Briscoe |
2018-08-17
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Bob Briscoe |
2018-08-10
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Martin Stiemerling |
2018-08-10
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Martin Stiemerling |
2018-08-10
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Requested Last Call review by TSVART |
2018-08-09
|
04 | Behcet Sarikaya | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04.txt |
2018-08-09
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-09
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Linda Dunbar , Tom Herbert , Behcet Sarikaya , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Bhumip Khasnabish , Saumya Dikshit |
2018-08-09
|
04 | Behcet Sarikaya | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-02
|
03 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Mahesh Jethanandani. Sent review to list. |
2018-06-28
|
03 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands. |
2018-06-15
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2018-06-15
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2018-06-14
|
03 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to IJsbrand Wijnands |
2018-06-14
|
03 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to IJsbrand Wijnands |
2018-06-14
|
03 | Matthew Bocci | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-06-14
|
03 | Matthew Bocci | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2018-05-25
|
03 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-03.txt |
2018-05-25
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-25
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Linda Dunbar , Tom Herbert , Behcet Sarikaya , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Bhumip Khasnabish , Saumya Dikshit |
2018-05-25
|
03 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-11
|
02 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com> |
2018-05-11
|
02 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2018-05-04
|
02 | Bhumip Khasnabish | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-02.txt |
2018-05-04
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-04
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Behcet Sarikaya , Tom Herbert , Linda Dunbar , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Bhumip Khasnabish , Saumya Dikshit |
2018-05-04
|
02 | Bhumip Khasnabish | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-03
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-10-30
|
01 | Behcet Sarikaya | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-01.txt |
2017-10-30
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-30
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Behcet Sarikaya , Tom Herbert , Linda Dunbar , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Bhumip Khasnabish , Saumya Dikshit |
2017-10-30
|
01 | Behcet Sarikaya | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-19
|
00 | Matthew Bocci | This document now replaces draft-sarikaya-nvo3-vmm-dmm-pmip instead of None |
2017-07-19
|
00 | Matthew Bocci | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-07-19
|
00 | Matthew Bocci | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2017-07-19
|
00 | Behcet Sarikaya | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-00.txt |
2017-07-19
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-07-17
|
00 | Behcet Sarikaya | Set submitter to "Behcet Sarikaya ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: nvo3-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-07-17
|
00 | Behcet Sarikaya | Uploaded new revision |