IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Tue, 14 February 2012 20:32 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 F0D4D21F8623 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, 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 z+FJMrbYtJiU for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A41921F8622 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so2505811qaf.10 for <armd@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OrQPhRSTvJUXQ7D+VzVM5e5ZeTXoZ7cS44R40CAwSVw=; b=Gv/xnrl+AreFFCXzAOauwjv/GZGEarpDGuTSRmnqo5745p9WL90z4lv4tbYYUCyw5a s/dCemYnHt6mQveTsTtyJOVLPPj0B8+55IXy5V/zgVxNWygqifNC8iBByxsQwbIZ6lz0 hn0kawsHS7c3t3knOXXiSCP1noJaplL1wjh4E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.76.132 with SMTP id c4mr12989139qck.134.1329251578586; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.155.206 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL3FGfy0iyo_TTr-iuSzQuqRm8Li753UFWQsk=RGWh_nCdPMMw@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAL3FGfy0iyo_TTr-iuSzQuqRm8Li753UFWQsk=RGWh_nCdPMMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:32:58 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gdEHTh81wgENfooE0YR-pWV9INk
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzwFWBWd0_QZ4CqgQmjTUaXnBafNVdk8oZvK6oRTCR4Jqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 20:33:00 -0000

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:
> And what protocol improvements are needed for multicast with overlays?
> The multicast community is ready to help. Multicast makes us happy. Or
> are you solely talking about vendor implementation, s/w release, hw
> support problems? AFAIK multicast works fairly well with VXLAN, TRILL,
> L2VPN... What's missing?

The whole problem of sending L2 multicast over a campus or data center
backbone, in any sort of significant way, is a new one enabled for the first
time by overlays.  There are interesting challenges when pushing large
amounts of multicast traffic through a network, and  have thus far been dealt
with using purpose-built networks.  While the overlay proposals have
been careful not to impose new protocol requirements, they have not
addressed the issues of performance and scalability, nor the large-scale
availability of these protocols.

Anoop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email