IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Tue, 14 February 2012 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.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 652A221E801D for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 JRKp6EgiN+gx for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDBA21E8011 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcsq5 with SMTP id q5so306886qcs.31 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=f4g08YO9YDoKBYlFWSyp8Y+MS4u4rW2yCGWGn6VhYlk=; b=XE6aUGk1X3OdnAIA/thIDvNdfBz/obtwqS7ZkrOKglKCrSNLzUrPABhG3CIDN4K3UK 3vKACbC4ouseOMMqb2kGng86+0OmB1F804Fzz6Ahbm17iEyCA4wzY7x4kQJYooxEWOy6 WLBSzhTJ0YTU7O+76NFaVCTeECXM+8e/le+pY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.77.72 with SMTP id f8mr13316279qck.34.1329256401023; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.155.206 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL3FGfwx=n9kKjwcARg6-ge2a-t-R+7RmR=d-qRJx=TdzNHMAQ@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:20 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: s0yGiJBjN_IAbAxzvF9UBGhRXts
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzxP2uruxqCQSBD7O+VurqxziZG3HhzSyfcHSRBeCTVSRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "armd@ietf.org" <armd@ietf.org>, Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:53:22 -0000

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are interesting challenges with unicast and multicast in big
> flat DC networks. That's why we are here. One of the constant themes
> we hear with multicast is the FUD that it doesn't scale. Especially
> from vendors who are pushing another solution or who have a crappy
> multicast implementation. Meanwhile multicast is being deployed in
> large scale networks without scaling issue.

Like I said earlier...we have large-scale multicast today, but
those are purpose-built networks, and at least today, they are no
where near the kinds of scale where people want to go with overlay
technology (in terms of size of network and traffic patterns).

> Large L2 overlay networks?
> I don't know. Would be good to find out from the community about
> performance and scalability of multicast in the DC.

Perhaps it's best we wait until the problems are little more obvious.
Or may be they're just non-existent and I get proven wrong.  Either
way, it looks like the correct thing for now is to do nothing.

Anoop

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email