[armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-02
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Fri, 04 May 2012 02:22 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 283B421F86C2 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 19:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.428, 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 I1ClKJwI1GbZ for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA1F21F86BE for <armd@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so3289158pbc.31 for <armd@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QFPOTllsgLbYELdZMsivIk8MUCehsgHYj5pM/bwj3Qo=; b=ISjft21at7winbBsgeML8KmzJGVp4hgZ/flH31+jIxZjWJTb5GM19MQ/e+Vsa0/Pct hY8yHlxkVM9Dm1j7xo6f5iF8lfn4fyeQYKAbxvDI+fG0ILBq2E5e9cdsLpIqzK3tjg29 ivD0OH4/VU0cwjUoN3sZqoHL7Y2c9JtYup+/HezLvMKOAMHlKMr1LaPcK9GySd00O8IM 4kIunG9rIDT2oEW+ul9qf0YDblF0o28emuF9JdPo7PZy0eeAqpVnLoV4Ya/bFtLIlAHD MJwT2va6NMGBfWQNb/NaEdGVwZ3QKcmeDt9tU9m7EHQku/iGaKOzMux8ctCFpbDdyr/c CqYw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.221.194 with SMTP id qg2mr1287802pbc.18.1336098176476; Thu, 03 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.153.18 with HTTP; Thu, 3 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:22:56 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4ATqj9yTPvts9gtua11asLWtAcU
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzx2tLq9G68p66CF-0mrDTi8Hf3d0=ceoEFaKLtU5TKwYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: armd@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-02
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: Fri, 04 May 2012 02:22:58 -0000
Fixed the subject. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anoop Ghanwani <ghanwani@gmail.com> Date: Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:21 PM Subject: review of To: armd@ietf.org As one of the people who had volunteered to review draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-02, here are my comments on the document. They are mostly editorial but there are a few minor issues with the content. Otherwise, the document accurately captures the gist of the problem. Anoop ===================== All sections ========== For consistency Data Center -> data center Access Layer, Access layer -> access layer Aggregation Layer, Aggregation layer -> aggregation layer Layer 2, layer 2 -> L2 Layer 3, layer 3 -> L3 Use ARP Request or ARP request consistently (prefer ARP Request) Section 1 ========= datacenters -> data centers Section 2 ========= In the definition for VM: Replace "bare" with "physical, non-virtualized". In the definition for EoR: Delete extraneous "network". Section 3 ========= Change "poor implementations of loop detection and prevention" to "poor implementations of loop detection and prevention or misconfiguration errors". Change "With virtualization, a single physical server can host 10 (or more) VMs, each having its own IP (and MAC) addresses" to "With virtualization, a single physical server can host many VMs, each having its own network interfaces with IP and MAC addresses." [The number is captured in a later sentence.] "services" is used all over the place, but there is no definition for services. Äpplication, however, is defined. I think what is meant here is application. Last paragraph: These number -> This number. Below Figure 1: Delete "Figure 1". Section 4.1 ========== Change "The access switches might be placed either on top-of-rack (ToR) or at end-of-row (EoR) physical configuration." to "The access layer may be implemented by wiring the servers within a rack to a top-of-rack (ToR) switch or, less commonly, the servers could be wired directly to an end-of-row (EoR) switch." Section 4.4.1 ============ For consistency with the following 2 sections change title from Layer 3 to L3. "This topology is ideal for scenarios where servers attached to a particular access switch generally run applications that are are confined to using a single subnet." I'm not sure I agree with this. There are many issues surround this including the capabilities of the devices in the network, the use of the multicast, and the preferences of the network administrator. Section 4.4.2 ============ "This topology allows for a great deal of flexibility as servers attached to one access switch can be re- loaded with applications with different IP prefix and VMs can now migrate between racks without IP address changes. " to "This topology allows a greater level of flexibility as servers attached to any access switch can be reloaded with applications and provisioned with IP addresses from multiple prefixes as needed. Further, in such an environment, VMs can migrate between racks without IP address changes. Change "layer 2 traffic are still partitioned by VLANs" to "layer 2 traffic is still partitioned using VLANs" "Even though layer 2 traffic are still partitioned by VLANs, the fact that all VLANs are enabled on all ports can lead to broadcast traffic on all VLANs to traverse all links and ports, which is same effect as one big Layer 2 domain. " I disagree with this because all VLANs would only need to be provisioned on the aggregation-facing ports. The disadvantage here is that a lot more broadcast traffic hits the aggregation layer, and when we need to cross VLAN boundaries, the traffic must go all way to the aggregation switch even though the source and destination may be on the same access switch, and the requirement for larger ARP tables at the aggregation switches. Section 4.4.4 ============= " There are several approaches regarding how overlay networks can make very large layer 2 network scale and enable mobility. " to "There are several approaches where overlay networks can be used to build very large L2 networks to enable VM mobility" "This can help the data center designer to control the size of the L2 domain. " It should be clarified that this only applies when L3 overlays are in use. "However, the Overlay Edge switches/routers which perform the network address encapsulation/decapsulation must ultimately perform a L2 address resolution and could still potentially face scaling issues at that point." It's not the overlay edge switches that have the scaling problem, its the volume of broadcasts that need to be sent across the core and that is not helped simply by using an L3 overlay. Change "physical addresses (MAC)" to "physical (MAC) addresses" For consistency, change "Layer 2 / Layer 3 boundary" to L2/L3 boundary Section 4.5 =========== Change "appropriately sized Access, Aggregation and Core networks" to "appropriately sized access, aggregation and core layers" Change "Broadly speaking it is desirable" to "Broadly speaking, it is desirable" Section 5 ========= ARP response -> ARP Reply rerun ARP -> reissue an ARP Request Section 6 ========== "Thus, whereas all nodes must process every ARP query, ND queries are processed only by the nodes to which they are intended." When virtualization is in use, the NIC is often operated in promiscuous mode, which means that the packet would be delivered to the hypervisor/vswitch and the filtering would have to be done there (usually implemented in software), making the problem almost as bad as with ARP. Section 7.1 ========= ARP query -> ARP Request Change "One common router implementation architecture has ARP processing handled" to "ARP processing in routers is commonly handled..." revalidate timer -> aging timer their ASIC fast paths -> their forwarding ASICs target's Subnet -> target's subnet Section 7.2 =========== nodes to which they are intended -> nodes for which they are intended Section 7.3 =========== ten (or more) VMs -> many VMs (in the 10's today, but growing rapidly as the number of cores per CPU increases)
- [armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-statemen… Anoop Ghanwani
- [armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-statemen… Lucy yong
- [armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-statemen… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [armd] review of draft-ietf-armd-problem-stat… Thomas Narten