Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-01-12
Requested 2016-12-20
Requested by Alia Atlas
Authors Lucy Yong , Linda Dunbar , Mehmet Toy , Aldrin Isaac , Vishwas Manral
I-D last updated 2017-01-15
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -15 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -15 by David L. Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 17)
Result Has issues
Completed 2017-01-15

I have been asked to review this draft as a Routing Directorate reviewer.

Document:  draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15
Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review Date: 15 January 2017
Intended Status: Informational

I have no major concerns about this document.

Minor Issues:
The document states that the NVO3 networks can be layer-2 or layer-3
entities. While layer-2 networks leave the complete IP addressing
scheme to the connected VMs/servers, a layer-3 NVO3 network will (if I
understand it correctly) set some restrictions on the IP addresses of
the VMs (because the addresses have to fit the routing tables used on
the NVO3 network).

The draft mention the use of iBGP or static routes for connecting a
customer server/VM over the internet (Section 3.1), but does not
mention any such thing within the NVO3 network and does also not
mention the any handing of addressing. Is this 'out of scope' for this
Use Case draft or should it maybe mention who is responsible for
defining the addressing scheme for a layer-3 NVO3 VM?

Henning Rogge