Re: [bess] VXLAN EVPN fabric extension to Hypervisor VM

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 03 March 2020 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5914A3A145D for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 16:08:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vsrBr8J-qPDH for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 16:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F8643A145C for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 16:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id d62so1132233oia.11 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:08:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hmq35VvNMcH1oyhXVxzagkiJ4DI6PA0ndum4BS6kGGM=; b=WPgIRkz/KFGzWfBoutOUnouxSqiFLD/PkQ/aCvMlRMGFGzJBQvjoLyl9I5nUslvU3C 4FcZTN0gd5dyc5hDvLEcxzgMCRFv/mshFQ4inAUS8iRFIOrhktTrn+9cg90tW6OF43qL 4WOTokS3nuUJtUFj8WF6oq7MqAqMlEqB8t9uzXoN0IZbYy5qSWuf3vM3RtZziuzFSqQL ruOSOlIqJZPaJpGMkFlhbBax0xKPBvY0NkazHhhT7ZYl+yOuPw5m72zP/J2PTJHKNlXl AqH+QKu4dPX6N0dAL3245ORm5PKba1U+aiTFl0aPL7Xn4Ve63n6vEE3liXKDAF/cBO0Q I/fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hmq35VvNMcH1oyhXVxzagkiJ4DI6PA0ndum4BS6kGGM=; b=qtwOBr3ku1NuxgyxNmdBAP59ahyahD19G7f/p/gKoTkct/SHTtoOJWtDeevOHlFltF Z4qHCWmnXqtHhKFIZ51TU9qASQ/tYdI39X9RQzZMymUMsKhWMS5RMF5AUfuqFomfD68j KIYvm0DpZ6OsxT7ciN8NEp6yhdlczqrjPWRLjCu1XjkXbJWhe74DuI2999Ep4nM/h+FK o/fA0Ghe5usZAM31OOXMRiH6KPmk0PqylmhbnoKPAV3IfWNTjgCQD7Qy5+zhHcExq3vn c7xTf9AdzaBuGzhGQ6ay/mwGumF2ZSU72cZdwd8JmNKIeyrk9pqkd84gFhjgJQvnyWgx blsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0qQ3F6MgQTNmjZkJDvMyjN09+tS1JY8dRa5JmJ5iYLaSxtILl+ +cN3lVSQuMDhq34x/+WSNn6mICmH85A6vUe4gHJapg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vv6Wxt5sRC+9vvocJF986uByqJUxzeNUdhkW54oLPBt3CXpvr6gZ51lNds/24k6SFzg7unMQIpihJL35Xoe7+Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:611:: with SMTP id y17mr683852oih.146.1583194081762; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:08:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV3_UHj2GS7+-0sfAi=RNA=h8+ccdv3ro2k-z15wOHJZ7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEq0HVzyzHAS+YiCZ1b=WJPLWK7j_=OS6KWERQ=M0U95g@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3BbtNUOLCjsyU3icsJEWJJ4pXmi=hjPDxqwVF7MGWhJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3BbtNUOLCjsyU3icsJEWJJ4pXmi=hjPDxqwVF7MGWhJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 01:07:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMENs6=14hbAQ6tgoLbfPFjQfn9Af840Nux+6k973ivD8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000daaf61059fe818c5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/72AHovnE63try9-6X4L7k8SbNWo>
Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN EVPN fabric extension to Hypervisor VM
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:08:05 -0000

Hi Gyan,

You are touching subject close to me so let me share my perspective on your
doubts below ;)

>  maybe some advantages of elimination of L2 to the host

Not some but huge !

>  BGP multipath provides flow based uneven load balancing

First Contrail/Tungsten does not use BGP to the hypervisor but XMPP. But
this is opaque to your concern.

Load balancing and hashing construction is your choice, BGP or XMPP only
deliver you next hops .. how you spread traffic to them is 100% up to your
choice. That is the same on hypervisor or on any decent router. LAGs also
build hash in the way you configure them to do so.

>  hypervisor managed by server admins

In any decent network or for that matter even in my lab this is all 100%
automated. You run one template and execute it. Ansible works pretty well,
but there are other choices too.

Many thx,
R.


On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 1:00 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks Robert for the quick response
>
> Just thinking out loud -  I can see there maybe some advantages of
> elimination of L2 to the host but the one major disadvantage is that BGP
> multipath provides flow based uneven load balancing so not as desirable
> from that standpoint compare to L3 MLAG bundle XOR Src/Dest/Port hash.
>
> Other big down side is most enterprises have the hypervisor managed by
> server admins but if you run BGP now that ends up shifting to network.
> More complicated.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:39 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> Similar architecture has been invented and shipped by Contrail team. Now
>> that project after they got acquired by Juniper has been renamed to
>> Tungsten Fabric https://tungsten.io/ while Juniper continued to keep the
>> original project's name and commercial flavor of it. No guarantees of any
>> product quality at this point.
>>
>> Btw ,,, no need for VXLAN nor BGP to the host. The proposed above
>> alternative were well thought out and turned to work ways far more
>> efficient and practical if you zoom into details.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robert.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:26 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear BESS WG
>>>
>>> Is anyone aware of any IETF BGP development in the Data Center arena to
>>> extend BGP VXLAN EVPN to a blade server Hypervisor making the Hypervisor
>>> part of the  vxlan fabric.  This could eliminate use of MLAG on the leaf
>>> switches and eliminate L2 completely from the vxlan fabric thereby
>>> maximizing  stability.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>> --
>>>
>>> Gyan  Mishra
>>>
>>> Network Engineering & Technology
>>>
>>> Verizon
>>>
>>> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>>>
>>> Phone: 301 502-1347
>>>
>>> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> BESS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>
>> --
>
> Gyan  Mishra
>
> Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>
>
>
>