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

Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org> Thu, 22 December 2011 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ping@pingpan.org>
X-Original-To: dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA9E21F8B5E for <dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 DpA41zmGMDhX for <dcrg-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D04121F8541 for <dcrg-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTvM1q6n7Qmnt3LQy1WEAagtf2Vwcd9dw@postini.com; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:51 PST
Received: by mail-qy0-f177.google.com with SMTP id c1so3643908qcs.36 for <dcrg-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.134.197 with SMTP id k5mr4002789qct.58.1324561835317; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:50:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.215.138 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:49:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE762C3E@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <AFA7E5B6-4ABE-46FA-95B2-80BC5D3F62DA@netapp.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE762C3E@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:49:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHEV9L2uADupXGz0bzkSPZGypaRQgBVMD=wqM00x1tRmtbVwtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00248c6a6742ad5b8404b4ae9519
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:09:02 -0800
Cc: "dcrg-interest@irtf.org." <dcrg-interest@irtf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "dc@ietf.org" <dc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dcrg-interest] [dc] IP over IP solution for data center interconnect
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:50:52 -0000

2011/12/22 Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>

> Hi all,
>
> There has been a lot of L2 over L3 solutions or proposals for data center
> network and data center interconnect till now. However, it seems recently
> there are increasing interests on L3 over L3 (e.g., IP over IP) solutions
> for data center network and data center interconnect, please see the
> following text quoted from IETF82 L2VPN minutes (
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/l2vpn.txt). It's a general
> belief that L3 is more scalable than L2. Especially when considering the
> data center interconnection case, the L3 over L3 solutions can bring DC
> operators more benefits compared to the L2 over L3 solutions, such as path
> optimization, active-active data centers, MAC table reduction on DC
> switches and broadcast flood suppression etc .
>
> Although Layer 2 connectivity is still required for some high-availability
> clusters which use non-IP and link-local multicast for communication, more
> and more cluster vendors are either already able to support cluster
> services at Layer3 or will support it in the near future. In addition, the
> GSLB mechanism (e.g., DNS based GSLB) works very well in most cases, is
> geo-cluster service still a common requirement for data center
> interconnect? If not, could we spend any time on exploring the possibility
> of using L3 over L3 solution for the most data center interconnection
> scenarios where geo-clustering, especially non-IP based geo-clustering is
> not needed?
>
>
This makes perfect sense!!

Ping


> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
>
> **************************************************************************************************************************
> Kireeti: I keep seeing ISID, PBB, VLANs.  We have to stop conceding to
> layer 2 and start moving to layer 3 (applause) and lots of problems will go
> away.
>
> Florin: We should put VPN on the same page to modify the priorities. You
> need to expand so can look at L3 over L3 as well as L2 over L3. For item
> number 2 we need to look at L3 transport as well as Ethernet and MPLS.  And
> for number 3 we need to work on this as there's a lot of expertise in L2,
> L3 and other WGs.
>
>
> Marc: The problem statement needs to include more of the L3 issues around
> sending L2 over L3, as the L2 traffic already contains L3.  Issue is just
> framing.
>
> Eric Nordmark; "Yes, Yes and Yes".  We need to focus from the DC
> prospective and not from the VPN view.  don't just think about Ethernet
> over IP, but also IP over IP.  Hypervisor may get decoupled over time.
>
> **************************************************************************************************************************
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: dc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Eggert, Lars
> > 发送时间: 2011年12月16日 16:24
> > 收件人: dc@ietf.org
> > 主题: [dc] IRTF datacenter research group discussion list
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to make you all aware of the IRTF's dcrg-interest mailing list,
> which
> > was set up following a face-to-face meeting at SIGCOMM this year to
> discuss a
> > possible IRTF research group on datacenter networking:
> > http://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrg-interest
> >
> > There has not been much activity towards the formation of an IRTF RG
> since
> > SIGCOMM, but I am hopeful that the high energy level demonstrated in the
> > various Taipei meetings on the topic will inject some energy here -
> several of
> > the topics that may be too early for the IETF to standardize around
> would fit an
> > IRTF RG very well. I'm certainly supportive of this.
> >
> > Lars
> > IRTF Chair
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mobile number during December:    +358 46 5215582
> > Mobile number starting January:  +49 151 12055791
>
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> dc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
>