<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Lingxian Kong wrote:</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Actually, in the scenario of NFV, all the rules or behaviors of the physical world
will apply to that in the virtual world, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">IMHO, despite of the scenarios, we should at least guarantee the consistency of creating
vms with nics and attaching nics .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’ll need to think about that a bit before I decide whether I agree. My gut response is to disagree with it as a blanket statement
while allowing that it may apply in specific scenarios.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The point about PCI passthrough in another post was a good one. If the VM is managing physical NICs then LACP at the VM level would
make sense. But if the VM is using virtualized NICs there’s at least some possibility that the underlying connectivity from the vNIC to the physical network is going over an LACP bundle of multiple NICs handled at the hypervisor level. At least that’s the
way we’re doing it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Running LACP over multiple vNICs just seems wrong to me. Increasing availability doesn’t simply mean adding two (or more) of everything.
Sometimes adding more “things” reduces availability. There needs to be at least one specific failure scenario where thing 2 can be expected to continue working when thing 1 fails. If all the failure modes are correlated (i.e. whatever caused thing 1 to fail
almost certainly would also cause thing 2 to fail simultaneously) then having one thing would be better than two.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>