[alto] How Data Center Virtualization influence ALTO mechanism.

"Y.J. GU" <guyingjie@huawei.com> Sat, 09 October 2010 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <guyingjie@huawei.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 031673A69B0 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.643, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Oxd-C4Tz1fcx for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E5E3A69AF for <alto@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LA000390HM8J5@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for alto@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:18:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LA000L52HM843@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for alto@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:18:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from g00107907 ([10.138.84.69]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LA0001PDHM7YV@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for alto@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:18:08 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:18:29 +0800
From: "Y.J. GU" <guyingjie@huawei.com>
To: alto@ietf.org
Message-id: <006201cb6782$2cb463a0$45548a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: ActngiuiBR3rbZuHQtOn7U2+Mr1xww==
Subject: [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: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 07:17:14 -0000

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?