Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 17 February 2012 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DFD21F88A2 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 V4pCfH4vp7dO for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3702421F873C for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q1HGVHAD013055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:31:19 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:31:00 -0500
Received: from mxhub25.corp.emc.com (mxhub25.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.181]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q1HGUxMI006482; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:30:59 -0500
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.157]) by mxhub25.corp.emc.com ([10.254.110.181]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:30:59 -0500
From: david.black@emc.com
To: jdrake@juniper.net, narten@us.ibm.com, nvo3@ietf.org
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:31:03 -0500
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
Thread-Index: Acztg+kaIkhoIAdYRfObB19+NBEOEQAAD2CwAAJSOjMAABZvLAAAIiRAAACZ7TMAADQgrg==
Message-ID: <B56CFB4A-2393-42C7-9A89-0AA397512F12@mimectl>
References: <201202171451.q1HEptR3027370@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>, <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70661A@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5E613872-0E27-46D2-8097-B31E7F0F37C5@mimectl>, <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70669D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A55C70669D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-mimectl: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V8.3.105.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: rbonica@juniper.net, nitinb@juniper.net, afarrel@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "L2 \"Network Virtualization Over l3\" overlay discussion list \(nvo3\)" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:31:21 -0000
Hi John, > > BGP and MPLS are non-starters for a lot of datacenter-internal > > networks. > > [JD] This is an assertion. It is also the misses the fact that MPLS > is only required to mux/demux packets at the edges of the VPN network. Indeed it is, but I stand by it. The interesting "edges of the VPN network" for NVO include datacenter ToR switches, datacenter access switches and hypervisor softswitches - there are plenty of examples of these for which MPLS and BGP are non-starters. I suggest reading the NVGRE and VXLAN drafts for more context: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@emc.com<mailto:david.black@emc.com> Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: John E Drake [jdrake@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:13 AM To: Black, David; narten@us.ibm.com; nvo3@ietf.org Cc: Ronald Bonica; Nitin Bahadur; Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Comments inline > -----Original Message----- > From: david.black@emc.com [mailto:david.black@emc.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:04 AM > To: John E Drake; narten@us.ibm.com; nvo3@ietf.org > Cc: Ronald Bonica; Nitin Bahadur; Adrian Farrel > Subject: RE: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter > > John, > > > This basically is a re-statement of what is done by L3/L2 VPNs. It' > > might be useful to do a gap analysis of these existing technologies, > > in particular E-VPNs (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raggarwa- > sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04), > > before asserting that something new is required. > BGP and MPLS are non-starters for a lot of datacenter-internal > networks. [JD] This is an assertion. It is also the misses the fact that MPLS is only required to mux/demux packets at the edges of the VPN network. > Some of the more important NVO deployment scenarios involve map-and- > encap in a hypervisor software network switch. [JD] Your point eludes me. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com<mailto:david.black@emc.com> Mobile: +1 (978) > 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________ > From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E > Drake [jdrake@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:00 AM > To: Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org > Cc: Ronald Bonica; Nitin Bahadur; Adrian Farrel > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter > > Thomas, > > This basically is a re-statement of what is done by L3/L2 VPNs. It > might be useful to do a gap analysis of these existing technologies, in > particular E-VPNs (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raggarwa-sajassi- > l2vpn-evpn-04), before asserting that something new is required. > > Thanks, > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > Thomas Narten > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:52 AM > > To: nvo3@ietf.org > > Subject: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter > > > > Below is a draft charter for this effort. One detail is that we > > started out calling this effort NVO3 (Network Virtualization Over > L3), > > but have subsequently realized that we should not focus on just "over > > L3". One goal of this effort is to develop an overlay standard that > > works over L3, but we do not want to restrict ourselves only to "over > > L3". The framework and architecture that we are proposing to work on > > should be applicable to other overlays as well (e.g., L2 over > > L2). This is (hopefully) captured in the proposed charter. > > > > Comments? > > > > Thomas > > > > NVO: Network Virtualization Overlays > > > > Support for multi-tenancy has become a core requirement of data > > centers, especially in the context of data centers which include > > virtualized servers known as virtual machines (VMs). With > > multi-tenancy, a data center can support the needs of many thousands > > of individual tenants, ranging from individual groups or departments > > within a single organization all the way up to supporting thousands > of > > individual customers. A key multi-tenancy requirement is traffic > > isolation, so that a tenant's traffic (and internal address usage) is > > not visible to any other tenant and does not collide with addresses > > used within the data center itself. Such isolation can be achieved > by > > creating and assigning one or more virtual networks to each tenant > > such that traffic within a virtual network is isolated from traffic > in > > other virtual networks. > > > > Tenant isolation is primarily achieved today within data centers > using > > Ethernet VLANs. But the 12-bit VLAN tag field isn't large enough to > > support existing and future needs. A number of approaches to > extending > > VLANs and scaling L2s have been proposed or developed, including IEEE > > 802.1ah Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) and TRILL (with the proposed > > fine-grained labeling extension). At the L3 (IP) level, VXLAN and > > NVGRE have also been proposed. As outlined in > > draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01.txt, however, existing > > L2 approaches are not satisfactory for all data center operators, > > e.g., larger data centers that desire to keep L2 domains small or > push > > L3 further into the data center (e.g., all the way to top-of-rack > > switches). Furthermore, there is a desire to decouple the > > configuration of the data center network from the configuration > > associated with individual tenant applications and to seamlessly and > > rapidly update the network state to handle live VM migrations or fast > > spin-up and spin-down of new tenant VMs (or servers). Such tasks are > > complicated by the need to simultaneously reconfigure and update data > > center network state (e.g., VLAN settings on individual switches). > > > > This WG will develop an approach to multi-tenancy that does not rely > > on any underlying L2 mechanisms to support multi-tenancy. In > > particular, the WG will develop an approach where multitenancy is > > provided at the IP layer using an encapsulation header that resides > > above IP. This effort is explicitly intended to leverage the interest > > in L3 overlay approaches as exemplified by VXLAN > > (draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00.txt) and NVGRE > > (draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00.txt). > > > > Overlays are a form of "map and encap", where an ingress node maps > the > > destination address of an arriving packet (e.g., from a source tenant > > VM) into the address of an egress node to which the packet can be > > tunneled to. The ingress node then encapsulates the packet in an > outer > > header and tunnels it to the egress node, which decapsulates the > > packet and forwards the original (unmodified) packet to its ultimate > > destination (e.g., a destination tenant VM). All map-and-encap > > approaches must address two issues: the encapsulation format (i.e., > > the contents of the outer header) and how to distribute and manage > the > > mapping tables used by the tunnel end points. > > > > The first area of work concerns encapsulation formats. This WG will > > develop requirements and desirable properties for any encapsulation > > format. Given the number of already existing encapsulation formats, > > it is not an explicit goal of this effort to choose exactly one > format > > or to develop yet another new one. > > > > A second work area is in the control plane, which allows an ingress > > node to map the "inner" (tenant VM) address into an "outer" > > (underlying transport network) address in order to tunnel a packet > > across the data center. We propose to develop two control planes. One > > control plane will use a learning mechanism similar to IEEE 802.1D > > learning, and could be appropriate for smaller data centers. A > second, > > more scalable control plane would be aimed at large sites, capable of > > scaling to hundreds of thousands of nodes. Both control planes will > > need to handle the case of VMs moving around the network in a dynamic > > fashion, meaning that they will need to support tunnel endpoints > > registering and deregistering mappings as VMs change location and > > ensuring that out-of-date mapping tables are only used for short > > periods of time. Finally, the second control plane must also be > > applicable to geographically dispersed data centers. > > > > Although a key objective of this WG is to produce a solution that > > supports an L2 over L3 overlay, an important goal is to develop a > > "layer agnostic" framework and architecture, so that any specific > > overlay approach can reuse the output of this working group. For > > example, there is no inherent reason why the same framework could not > > be used to provide for L2 over L2 or L3 over L3. The main difference > > would be in the address formats of the inner and outer headers and > the > > encapsulation header itself. > > > > Finally, some work may be needed in connecting an overlay network > with > > traditional L2 or L3 VPNs (e.g., VPLS). One approach appears straight > > forward, in that there is a clear boundary between a VPN device and > > the edge of an overlay network. Packets forwarded across the boundary > > would simply need to have the tenant identifier on the overlay side > > mapped into a corresponding VPN identifier on the VPN > > side. Conceptually, this would appear to be analogous to what is done > > already today when interfacing between L2 VLANs and VPNs. > > > > The specific deliverables for this group include: > > > > 1) Finalize and publish the overall problem statement as an > > Informational RFC (basis: > > draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01.txt) > > > > 2) Develop requirements and desirable properties for any > encapsulation > > format, and identify suitable encapsulations. Given the number of > > already existing encapsulation formats, it is not an explicit goal of > > this effort to choose exactly one format or to develop a new one. > > > > 3) Produce a Standards Track control plane document that specifies > how > > to build mapping tables using a "learning" approach. This document is > > expected to be short, as the algorithm itself will use a mechanism > > similar to IEEE 802.1D learning. > > > > 4) Develop requirements (and later a Standards Track protocol) for a > > more scalable control plane for managing and distributing the > mappings > > of "inner" to "outer" addresses. We will develop a reusable framework > > suitable for use by any mapping function in which there is a need to > > map "inner" to outer addresses. Starting point: > > draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00.txt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > nvo3@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
- [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Thomas Narten
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Thomas Narten
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Randy Bush
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Igor Gashinsky
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Thomas Narten
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Larry Kreeger
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Paul Unbehagen
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Larry Kreeger
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Ping Pan
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Pat Thaler
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Pat Thaler
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Larry Kreeger
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Lizhong Jin
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Robert Raszuk
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Xuxiaohu
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Xuxiaohu
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Lizhong Jin
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Pedro Marques
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter david.black
- Re: [nvo3] Draft NVO3 WG Charter Pat Thaler