Re: [alto] How Data Center Virtualization influence ALTO mechanism.

Tao Ma <abcdmatao@gmail.com> Tue, 12 October 2010 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <abcdmatao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D243A68A5 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omEad1JSb0y8 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066633A6863 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk8 with SMTP id 8so178017qyk.10 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XElIIgvmK0quMolT4bP+51QYYDtcOjkal+6msKkeLf0=; b=x+4yqVrcYKRFP8xRxpc9CFsWz9XaL1EcDQn9ysJo7mBPQRnTPQSd1ENAzFqnzcn2vr ESfj3WfEcvFcl5U9WkM4nUVfXfRQ2OW33AGP1j7l2uZPhDCOzDSjKsApgqI9noN0Kcz/ OW/Ecjv7ClLTcGoSRLG99qiiDU72PdAjVSX70=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=fkTogiPkGWRZ3yroCRnOgdBYeQC6NcdJcmmZevm1pRSizMv2OQJceP+peD4f6FVxdK XoJf1ZW9g0bLMfXDFXhK/4yRYSvOWG388HW6ingldV5Cqr/ajsVkjtPW2u26oSx9eUcL g7n7RVjnYjfDsqXMqP0kxNtWsfYZXx2OaNEgI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.181.12 with SMTP id bw12mr5694096qcb.249.1286851484297; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.41.143 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinYz05r0qoNc_fVfsYqD7AAq35yYZti0GdpQqMV@mail.gmail.com>
References: <006201cb6782$2cb463a0$45548a0a@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTinYz05r0qoNc_fVfsYqD7AAq35yYZti0GdpQqMV@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:44:44 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=V0YnzzKGih5F-2uOXzCkrD1wimSSmf1uo9s2R@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tao Ma <abcdmatao@gmail.com>
To: guyingjie@huawei.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016361e7fe499a9a2049262753e"
Cc: chunhong zhang <zhangchbupt@gmail.com>, wifnstone@gmail.com, miwei1985@gmail.com, alto@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [alto] How Data Center Virtualization influence ALTO mechanism.
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:43:37 -0000

Hi,
    I think it is an interesting aspect for ALTO protocol to be considered.
The current ALTO uses IP address as the endpoint adress for grouping and
locating. For the VM migration, this would fail, especailly without the
contol of the ISP or ALTO service provider. Can ALTO mechanism make some
changes to reflect this migration in some way? By using other alternatives
such as geolocations or PoP to group, can we avoid this and how?
PS: I have a question personally. How the routing would succeed after VM are
migrated without changing IP adress? Can you tell me some current mechanism?
Thanks:)
Tao Ma
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications


From: Y.J. GU <guyingjie@huawei.com>
> Date: Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:18 AM
> Subject: [alto] How Data Center Virtualization influence ALTO mechanism.
> To: alto@ietf.org
>
>
> Hi all,
> I was thinking about how Data Center Virtualization and Virtual Machine(VM)
> Migration will influence ALTO mechanism.
>
> Current ALTO Protocol defines clustering of peers according to their IP
> Addresses. E.g. peers in same subnet will be classified into same PID, and
> path cost will indicate the cost within and between PIDs, which is also
> actually based on IP Addresses.
>
> In the current world, peers are partitioned by IP subnet. While considering
> virtual machines migration, there might be more interesting things to think
> of.
>
> In Data Center operation, one basic consensus is 'When Virtual Machines
> move from one site to another, the IP Addresses will not change, so that the
> existing service connection will not be broken'.  VMs can migrate to
> arbitrary site, not under the control and knowledge of ISP. For example,
> some VMs in Data Center A(IP subnet 198.1.1.0) move to Data Center B (IP
> subnet 210.1.1.0). IP-based, Vms are closer to DC-A. Physically, these VMs
> are much closer to hosts in DC-B. However things are not so easy, especially
> considering how these VMs are routed. Current ALTO may give wrong cost
> ranking.
>
> VMs may migrate under, but not limited to, these situations: 1) to save
> electricity power, 2) disaster recovery, 3) customer prefer another Data
> Center, 4) company extension, etc. In the end, the internet will not be a
> regular world partitioned by IP Addresses.
>
> Does anyone think this is an interesting aspect to study?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>