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

[Ping Pan <[e-mail]>]

2011/12/22 Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>

> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Eggert, Lars
> > 发送时间: 2011年12月16日 16:24
> > 收件人: [e-mail]
> > 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:    [phone]
> > Mobile number starting January:  [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
>