[armd] soliciting typical network designs for ARMD

Linda Dunbar <dunbar.ll@gmail.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dunbar.ll@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 829E611E809C for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wyoapgQIOakI for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620FE21F8CD2 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so265210fxe.31 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pSGDcLyaOiArYjAl3FWM1jJCmBAPRQ2n5hazhm/k+Bs=; b=rIGOb5o4uVyFRDW6fzhvIafONAv6Nr7FYSaJFLZ/0KNEd/K+yqmt+lYyB4h9XmDKpf pIUBSyyVd21G+xY29dosv8UMa9qxbgwnKvQVlgpUtobWSZIAIytSBN7b9yzAhqcoL2zI ptgejy/Oea70e9sJm2DX6S3oimds/NYgttBeo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.65.205 with SMTP id xn13mr2032000bkb.284.1312910521920; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.81.139 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:22:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP_bo1b_2D=fbJJ8uGb8LPWb-6+sTQn1Gsh9YAp8pFs3JY_rrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linda Dunbar <dunbar.ll@gmail.com>
To: armd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5430fb647ec3404aa15cdcf"
Subject: [armd] soliciting typical network designs for ARMD
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, 09 Aug 2011 17:21:34 -0000

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