IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [armd] Multicast Issues in ARMD Scope

Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> Tue, 06 March 2012 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mmcbride7@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 97E3F21F861D for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7dwOlXiIxtJa for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD62621F861B for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so7990948lag.31 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mmcbride7@gmail.com designates 10.152.134.146 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.152.134.146;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mmcbride7@gmail.com designates 10.152.134.146 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mmcbride7@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=mmcbride7@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.152.134.146]) by 10.152.134.146 with SMTP id pk18mr23341968lab.43.1331071497847 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:04:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TNiel0zk62+z2V6TCRPQZhOeHLtdhocExJYDn91zNjs=; b=haY4m9QTEZRe4zZQLiIRsrek6dzVFdkNsh7acTFzriWzmOtEHPi0YqDqagWSwfPv36 7Gx68lcu6/2LyRtDF/JqSVdIB5VB1MEcvoDzQ167AfGT+pT0pSc7S5z6/UYwDLz/S6jr VqxA1QQHVx4PP0dytvocHCwMWSvP9IHqiMel65jWMsn2a0DWCHxWw1HZ49k4Fve0hLh6 tdPHRTyqWao50UndjUhbtO/i63W1zLmYaclHloL359l3Q+RazGGmN8vJloKp8qYwZmcS IzeDwQdeWGZlTcIEgcLp47HbWZJ3HR2Pv23jybqd4ue43p+L8p3CWxZks3JSt2e4fhrq sBBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.134.146 with SMTP id pk18mr19151112lab.43.1331071497766; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.199 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:04:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A8BD8AFC-0782-452D-8659-8FC583FF3CE2@cisco.com>
References: <A8BD8AFC-0782-452D-8659-8FC583FF3CE2@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:04:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL3FGfzH=ixZDcc++ORw-zSCAaT7Xc+DR+7XMMx8ZRJLrxi4qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: armd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [armd] Multicast Issues in ARMD Scope
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, 06 Mar 2012 22:04:59 -0000

Benson,

I agree. Such a draft may better belong in DC-Ops or MBONED. The topic
created a flurry on this list so I thought it would be good to start
documenting the uses and problems.

IP multicast uses direct mapping for address resolution, so certain,
ARMD in the DC, issues may not apply to multicast. I will describe
this in the draft but didn't want to step on the toes of
armd-problem-statement.

You should consider adding some text, in armd-problem-statement, about
multicast direct mapping for address resolution, and perhaps some of
the other points from my draft.

thanks,
mike

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com> wrote:
> ARMD participants -
>
> At the last ARMD meeting at IETF82 in Taipei, a few participants made comments about multicast. Specifically, I recall Dino asking if it was in the scope of ARMD's charter. More recently, there has been a discussion on this list about multicast in datacenters. In response, a draft was posted at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview-00 that discusses various ways that multicast is used in datacenters.
>
> As co-chairs, Linda and I are interested in whether the WG has any work to do on this topic. For instance, draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview suggests there might be "address resolution for non ARP/ND multicast traffic".
>
> My view, in absence of WG feedback, is that ARMD's scope does not include "how to run multicast in a datacenter" - that might be more appropriate for the DC-Ops mailing list at this time. But if there are multicast-related problems that can be described in terms of address resolution, then ARMD should discuss them. For instance (if I may speculate) there might be issues with overlay address resolution and/or group-to-MAC mappings. Can you help me understand what those might be?
>
> Your feedback and comments are appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson and Linda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> armd mailing list
> armd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/armd

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email