[dcrg-interest] 答复: IP over IP solution for data center interconnect

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Sat, 24 December 2011 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD70021F86B3 for <dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:27:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4UwdpGezfW9L for <dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069D821F85A8 for <dcrg-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in []) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LWO00BKUPDGOF@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dcrg-interest@irtf.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:27:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LWO003UEPDFVR@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dcrg-interest@irtf.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:27:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com ([]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AFX42859; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:27:13 +0800
Received: from SZXEML420-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:27:10 +0800
Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by szxeml420-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:27:09 +0800
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:27:09 +0000
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <9BD2028E-A6B7-478F-8CFA-95F1A832611B@cisco.com>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com>
Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE762FC9@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [dcrg-interest] IP over IP solution for data center interconnect
Thread-index: AQHMwT2CzwDYBIw29UGeVkQ77HSrWZXpLIkAgAD+00A=
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <AFA7E5B6-4ABE-46FA-95B2-80BC5D3F62DA@netapp.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE762EB4@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> <9BD2028E-A6B7-478F-8CFA-95F1A832611B@cisco.com>
Cc: "dcrg-interest@irtf.org" <dcrg-interest@irtf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "dc@ietf.org" <dc@ietf.org>, "armd@ietf.org" <armd@ietf.org>
Subject: [dcrg-interest] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIElQIG92ZXIgSVAgc29sdXRpb24g?= =?gb2312?b?Zm9yIGRhdGEgY2VudGVyIGludGVyY29ubmVjdA==?=
X-BeenThere: dcrg-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dcrg-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dcrg-interest>, <mailto:dcrg-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dcrg-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrg-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrg-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrg-interest>, <mailto:dcrg-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:27:32 -0000

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bschlies@cisco.com]
> 发送时间: 2011年12月24日 1:45
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: Eggert, Lars; dc@ietf.org; dcrg-interest@irtf.org; armd@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [dcrg-interest] IP over IP solution for data center interconnect
> On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> > By the way, the ARP table scaling issue on DC gateways, which is deemed by
> the ARMD WG as the only worthy ARP problem in data center networks, could
> also be solved with the IP over IP solution.
> Two comments:
> First, if anybody is interested in exploring additional address resolution issues in
> the datacenter, please speak up now on the ARMD mailing list. We are
> attempting to finish our Problem Statement soon. The Problem Statement will
> only include those issues that are described by WG contributors. So if you think
> we should deem other issues to be worthy problems, please contribute to the
> discussion.
> Second, at a high-level I think that a number of ARMD participants will agree
> with your comment about ARP scale issues being solved by "IP over IP"
> solutions. In fact, it's not just IP-over-IP that can help. Any map-and-encap
> scheme, including L2-over-IP, can help by shifting the burden to a mapping
> mechanism. Local ARP/ND proxy functions (e.g. in the VM v-switch, TOR, etc)
> could take advantage of the mapping mechanism to facilitate address
> resolution.

As for L2 over IP solutions, I agree that the ARP broadcast flood impact on the servers/routers and networks could be alleviated by using the ARP cache mechanism (tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-shah-armd-arp-reduction-02.txt) or some ARP mapping system.

However, since the DC gateways usually need to forward traffic to so many hosts at most time, they need a very large ARP cache table to contain so many ARP entries. Otherwise, the ARP cache aging-out timer should be set short enough. In the way, the DC gateways would have to send ARP requests more frequently, in addition, the gateways are required to have a much large packet cache to cache the received packets destined for the hosts before the ARP responses for them are returned, otherwise the received packets would have to be discarded when the cache is overflowed. In a word, I don't know how the mapping system could help on this ARP table scaling issue.

Best regards,

> In my personal opinion: The real problem is figuring out how to do the mapping,
> what the right mapping approach is for a datacenter, etc.  This is the topic of
> the NVO3 effort that was discussed during L2VPN in Taipei.
> Cheers,
> -Benson