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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Xuxiaohu
> 发送时间: 2011年12月22日 16:28
> 收件人: 'Eggert, Lars'; [e-mail]; '[e-mail].'
> 主题: IP over IP solution for data center interconnect
> 
> 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 .

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.

Best regards,
Xiaohu
 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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]