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 >
- Re: [dcrg-interest] [dc] IP over IP solution for … Ping Pan
- Re: [dcrg-interest] IP over IP solution for data … Xuxiaohu
- Re: [dcrg-interest] IP over IP solution for data … Benson Schliesser
- [dcrg-interest] 答复: IP over IP solution for data … Xuxiaohu
- Re: [dcrg-interest] [armd] IP over IP solution fo… Ashish Dalela (adalela)