IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 22 February 2012 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: armd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: armd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A1221E801D for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:21:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVH3BAFqscqA for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220B721F84E0 for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ADM79848; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:21:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:18:19 -0800
Received: from DFWEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.100]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:18:08 +0800
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>
Thread-Topic: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?
Thread-Index: AczoOuIfjmo4HB2iRmy2e6GgqFO6cgAasSGAAJJPaQAAIkw2gAAEYXaAAADqZQAAAFoBAAABELEAAAFaTgAAAKMEAAABhOwAAAFJnQAAAMYJgAAQkC3QAXInkiAAEXnFAAAQjDpg
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E22305@dfweml505-mbx>
References: <CA+-tSzxP2uruxqCQSBD7O+VurqxziZG3HhzSyfcHSRBeCTVSRg@mail.gmail.com> <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E291E2C8@dfweml503-mbx> <D8CD26287252844898B508C40824D8F4830AEE@AD-EXH02.adhost.lan> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E2223D@dfweml505-mbx> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1202221506230.24790@netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1202221506230.24790@netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.97]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "armd@ietf.org" <armd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?
X-BeenThere: armd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues associated with large amount of virtual machines being introduced in data centers and virtual hosts introduced by Cloud Computing." <armd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/armd>, <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/armd>
List-Post: <mailto:armd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/armd>, <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:21:23 -0000

In VRRP environment unicast address is used by hosts, not the multicast address, correct? 
So there is no multicast address in the Layer 2 domain as some other LB described in the email list (e.g. Microsoft LB)? 

Linda 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Gashinsky [mailto:igor@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:09 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; AshwoodsmithPeter; Anoop Ghanwani; Mike
> McBride; Thomas Narten; armd@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to
> overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?
> 
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> 
> :: Michael,
> ::
> :: > -----Original Message-----
> :: > Microsoft is configurable for IGMP Multicast and Unicast.  There
> are
> :: > also the other LB protocols such as CARP, VRRP, GLBP, HSRP, etc.
> :: >
> ::
> :: Why do you consider VRRP as LB protocols? Hosts are not even aware
> of if VRRP is used or not, correct?
> 
> I actually can easily see VRRP being termed an LB protocol  -- while
> it's
> true that VRRP and HSRP are first-hop redundancy protocols, by striping
> VRRP/HSRP groups along multiple switches, you can manually achieve
> load-ballancing between multiple gateways, in fact, quite a few people
> do
> that very thing (and have done it for over a decade).
> 
> -igor
> 
> --------------------+----------------------+------------------
>    Igor Gashinsky   | Network Architecture | Yahoo! Inc.
>  igor@yahoo-inc.com |  cell 917.807.2213   | Do You... Yahoo?
> --------------------+----------------------+------------------

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email