IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Wed, 15 February 2012 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dino@cisco.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 0E42921F86D0 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:20:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 7MlKy3cJ6Qc5 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B584421F86CB for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:20:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; l=1039; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329344420; x=1330554020; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vPEPJBwlwQ9A3jFOjydxpfEOdfjnHhMS9kBjXjynvTw=; b=CZ5sz1JPgSRtNZTxryqCL4rOadptorm8dMb9JUOxV+Ho/o07AemrLVlI 7FTvk+qsHijeEZpYkk6UQx5nKfP/Oz+59tf74WCSWtQS8HzMwJ2lYJscU 6YzdMzEYSmj7R2qxYBKj5KbHhF5aokMGaaJcalbfTQodxFyBNBw1KhihO A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAIAuPE+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABCsGWBB4FyAQEBAwESASc/BQsLRlcGNYddmxUBnlaLaQIEAwQDFAoQBgYJDAIKAg0BEAODVQICAQQCBAEFgnZjBIhNjGmTCQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,425,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="30644998"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2012 22:20:20 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn6-975.cisco.com (sjc-vpn6-975.cisco.com [10.21.123.207]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1FMKKaw015980; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:20:20 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1202141450530.7083@netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:20:20 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5EC573B7-3DF4-42AC-A3C5-BEA3C2AB8A1D@cisco.com>
References: <CA+-tSzzNeLP4N=Nv1EeBML51KTpmxPP3NWut+vnaWFy8RtUViA@mail.gmail.com> <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E291E1A5@dfweml503-mbx> <CA+-tSzyvoDfwnKc7Yt65abQWSqMg2jF0iQax=wcYkmwtNGxZng@mail.gmail.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD522A9BE1F1@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CA+-tSzwZVYyEO62ngYGojwSrkSBBY2SWr93PDQmAp7a3y_7TMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL3FGfy0iyo_TTr-iuSzQuqRm8Li753UFWQsk=RGWh_nCdPMMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzwFWBWd0_QZ4CqgQmjTUaXnBafNVdk8oZvK6oRTCR4Jqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL3FGfwx=n9kKjwcARg6-ge2a-t-R+7RmR=d-qRJx=TdzNHMAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1202141450530.7083@netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com>
To: Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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, 15 Feb 2012 22:20:25 -0000

> I've so far stayed pretty quiet on this, but, on this, I have to strongly 
> disagree. It is not FUD that multicast doesn't scale well inside large 

There are others who probably wish to not divulge their proprietary scalign numbers who would disagree with you.

> datacenters -- it is a simple fact, and I speak as an operator of what 
> several of my vendors called the 2nd largest multicast deployment they 
> have ever seen, with many 10's of thousands (S,G) entries. 

It depends what you are comparing 10,000 to. Comparing to unicast numbers would not being comparing apples with apples. Remember the granularity of a multicast route is much finer than a unciast route because it wants to conserve bandwidith and build good distribution trees.

It is a simple bandwidth versus state tradeoff and 10,000 is pretty large.

Many think a data center with 10,000 hosts are large too. I know you can one-mag-up us Igor, but 10,000 is a large number for enterprise sites.

Dino

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email