IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com> Tue, 14 February 2012 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Peter.AshwoodSmith@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 19A8921E809C for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:31:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 6zqGpy-qQoGQ for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FD021E8058 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ADP16476; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:31:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:29:11 -0800
Received: from DFWEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.29]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:29:13 +0800
From: AshwoodsmithPeter <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?
Thread-Index: AczoOuIfjmo4HB2iRmy2e6GgqFO6cgAasSGAAHDIVwAAIkw2gAAU7kJQ
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:29:13 +0000
Message-ID: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E291E1A5@dfweml503-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzzNeLP4N=Nv1EeBML51KTpmxPP3NWut+vnaWFy8RtUViA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.193.60.75]
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>, 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 18:31:45 -0000

>That said, there are unicast applications (such as Microsoft's Network
>Load Balancing) that require multicast at L2, and because they
>require multicast at L2, such a network would still need to support
>IP multicast.

>So really, the directory-based approach would be helpful
>only in a narrow set of circumstances -- no multicast applications
>including things like NLB.

Anoop, even if you have a good multicast in the underlay network and its being used by things like MS NLB there is still enormous value in eliminating the multicast methods that are used to establish the <c-mac, ip-addr, b-mac tunnel> tripple relationships via some form of database etc.

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email