Re: [dc] Comment of draft-dalela-dc-requirements

Hello Ashish,
Hello Mr. Lizhong,

Please note that, we are also working on a draft related to virtual machine
(and virtual network element) mobility and interconnection
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt).
Would appreciate comments and  suggestions. Thanks.
Best.
Bhumip

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ashish,
> I have several comments to this requirement. Thanks.
>
> Section 5.3, Multi-tenancy problem. From my side, the multi-tenancy
> problem is not only the scalability of segmentation-ID problem, it is also
> required to isolate performance and security among multi-tenant. For
> example, one tenant should not suffer denial-of-service attacks by other
> tenant within same datacenter. A detailed example is, the huge broadcast
> traffic from one tenant should not influence the performace and
> availability of other tenants.
>
> Section 5.3, "The use of L3 VRFs also poses similar challenges of
> scaling". The challenge for VRF is quite different with VLAN. The challenge
> for VRF is the scalability of forwarding table. And you also said:"With
> VRFs, these entries will be present even if there is no traffic from a host
> to other hosts in the VRF". I think this could be optimized that the FIB
> would store only active route entries, while the RIB would store all route
> entries.
>
> Section 5.5, last paragraph about mobility. It seems that this paragraph
> is not much related with "network convergence", but is about "host mobility
> impact to the network resource". While I find that, section 5.1 is about
> the "host mobility impact to L2/3 forwarding", 5.10 is about the "host
> mobility impact to forwarding tables". Suggest to re-organize the three
> parts which are all related with impact of host mobility.
>
> Regards
> Lizhong
>
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> dc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
>
>