IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Tue, 14 February 2012 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <david.i.allan@ericsson.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 A504B21F8663 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Y-tJZd-HP27u for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF7921F8637 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1EJwwum000980; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:59:00 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.142]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:58:55 -0500
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:58:54 -0500
Thread-Topic: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?
Thread-Index: AczrT+idram2Vye5Shep+1EpD+DruQAApkHA
Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD522A9BE2DC@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <CA+-tSzzNeLP4N=Nv1EeBML51KTpmxPP3NWut+vnaWFy8RtUViA@mail.gmail.com> <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E291E1A5@dfweml503-mbx> <CA+-tSzyvoDfwnKc7Yt65abQWSqMg2jF0iQax=wcYkmwtNGxZng@mail.gmail.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD522A9BE1F1@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CA+-tSzwZVYyEO62ngYGojwSrkSBBY2SWr93PDQmAp7a3y_7TMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzwZVYyEO62ngYGojwSrkSBBY2SWr93PDQmAp7a3y_7TMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>, "armd@ietf.org" <armd@ietf.org>
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 19:59:04 -0000

Hi Anoop:

Eeesh, no offence but you are advocating overlaying complexity on complexity vs. cutting to the heart of the problem. 

"No-hardware left behind" IMO is social engineering, not technology.

Cheers
Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: ghanwani@gmail.com [mailto:ghanwani@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:36 AM
To: David Allan I
Cc: AshwoodsmithPeter; Thomas Narten; armd@ietf.org; Igor Gashinsky
Subject: Re: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM, David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I have to admit I am a bit confused by the direction this is going.
>
> There seems to be a view that multicast is bad, yet it is a useful tool to permit a significant amount of functionality to be delegated to end systems, and is a part of useful address aggregation in the form of the subnet. IMO virtualized broadcast domains are good things, not something to be avoided, and they permit a trusted resource community to do a lot of self-organizing.
>
> Perhaps you should be thinking about improving multicast, not evicerating everything else. And as a general design principle, I believe that applies to most areas where the tail is wagging the dog in these deliberations.

Theoretically speaking, it is easy to brush this off and say "let's just improve multicast", and if we do nothing then that is pretty much what will happen.
However, as a practical matter, there is a lot of hardware out there that has significant problems with multicast.  This means we delay the deployment of such solutions until the hardware catches up (if it ever does), or let smart people who don't care about standards figure out ways around it that are non-interoperable, and worry about about the standardization aspect later.

Anoop

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email