Re: [armd] soliciting typical network designs for ARMD

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,
I am unsure what you mean by this, but:

   1. layer 3 all the way to TOR (Top of Rack switches),

We can also have a heirarchical network, with the core totally Layer-3 (and
having seperate routing), from the hosts still in a large Layer-3 subnet.
Another aspect could be to have a totally Layer-3 network.

The difference between them is the link between the servers and the ToR.

Thanks,
Vishwas
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> During the 81st IETF ARMD WG discussion, it was suggested that it is
> necessary to document typical data center network designs so that address
> resolution scaling issues can be properly described. Many data center
> operators have expressed that they can't openly reveal their detailed
> network designs. Therefore, we only want to document anonymous designs
> without too much detail. During the journey of establishing ARMD, we have
> come across the following typical data center network designs:
>
>    1. layer 3 all the way to TOR (Top of Rack switches),
>    2. large layer 2 with hundreds (or thousands) of ToRs being
>    interconnected by Layer 2. This design will have thousands of hosts under
>    the L2/L3 boundary router (s)
>    3. CLOS design  with thousands of switches. This design will have
>    thousands of hosts under the L2/L3 boundary router(s)
>
> We have heard that each of the designs above has its own problems. ARMD
> problem statements might need to document DC problems under each typical
> design.
> Please send feedback to us (either to the armd email list  or to the ARMD
> chair Benson & Linda) to indicate if we have missed any typical Data Center
> network designs.
>
> Your contribution can greatly accelerate the progress of ARMD WG.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Linda & Benson
>