IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [armd] draft-nachum-sarp

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 040A321F87C1 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 I-vuI6cN9dt1 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ECE21F87D3 for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <armd@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:25:00 -0600
Received: from d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (9.56.224.17) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:24:58 -0600
Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB24C90072 for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:24:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q34FOtNo292364 for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:24:55 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q34KtPvI015660 for <armd@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:55:26 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-203-35.mts.ibm.com [9.65.203.35]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q34KtFKL013931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:55:16 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q34FJCMA017432; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:19:13 -0400
Message-Id: <201204041519.q34FJCMA017432@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <15B73861-C485-48F7-BB01-0F93BA0DB7AE@cisco.com>
References: <15B73861-C485-48F7-BB01-0F93BA0DB7AE@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:51:09 -0500."
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:19:07 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12040415-3270-0000-0000-00000551D96B
Cc: armd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [armd] draft-nachum-sarp
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, 04 Apr 2012 15:25:02 -0000

I just had a quick look at this document. It appears to me to be a
combination of "learning" and "proxy ARP". IMO, it needs a bit more
detail on some aspects prior to publication, but that is a separate
question.

But, looking at draft-dunbar-armd-arp-nd-scaling-bcp-00.txt, it says:

   Recommendation: Revise RFC1027 with VLAN support and scalability for
   the Data Center Environment.

I.e., update the Proxy ARP RFC. That is what draft-nachum-sarp sort of
does (well, it defines another usage of Proxy ARP).

Updating (or outlining some best practices for) Proxy ARP does not
appear to be in-scope for any WG at the moment. I'm also not sure how
much energy there would be for someone to take on such an activity
(int-area arguably would be a fine home, were there energy).

On the other hand, if we are seeing a renewed interested in using
proxy ARP for DC stuff, and we start seeing additional submissions in
this space, maybe the IETF should do something rather than have a
bunch of individual submissions appear.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email