Re: [nvo3] Applicability of RFC 5512 to NVO3?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 18 February 2012 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 A844021F85A1 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 m8TyCCWognI9 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6E521F857A for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 24076 invoked by uid 399); 18 Feb 2012 10:35:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.184.197) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 18 Feb 2012 10:35:41 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 83.31.184.197
Message-ID: <4F3F7EFD.8050907@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:35:41 +0100
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
References: <07A3C8B8-1460-435C-99B6-210B479C3840@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <07A3C8B8-1460-435C-99B6-210B479C3840@castlepoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Applicability of RFC 5512 to NVO3?
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
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: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:35:43 -0000

Hi Shane,

5512 would require each host to support BGP.

That for amount of information scaling would automatically mean that 
each host in the data center would need to also support RTC (rfc4684).

Session scaling is another challenge if we follow Igor's numbers.

And I am not sure that the p2mp information distribution nature of BGP 
fits well to the set of requirements here. It seems that host to VM 
controller/orchestration/ect is much more p2p in it's nature. From 
looking at our data centers I see the common user's VMs residing on very 
little number of hosts.

Even if one would go that path (and maybe we would restart talks about 
bgp-lite .. what may be regardless useful for PE-CE bgp scaling in other 
areas) which BGP implementation you would recommend to use on the hosts ?

Cheers,
R.

> I am curious to know if the following RFC has been looked at to see
> if it's applicable to the NVO3 solution space. Furthermore, if it was
> looked at, I'd be curious to know why it was insufficient?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5512
>
> Thanks,
>
> -shane _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing
> list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>