Re: [nvo3] Questions on using LISP's signal free multicast for draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Sun, 31 August 2014 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC00F1A89B5; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NvsGZKv9hJvC; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 856DC1A89B4; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id lj1so10283324pab.28 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pEzI9w71BQb0gYFmOLrTDd5G6w33pAxZmRgMtp9+SuM=; b=DffCkVa7z4nmFMwBSiNuotJiF4ySOQiggnnKVKBrYtJ1QOXtiRX1epJTt5WuhBKUUP OhBFvnnewFL1YIg5AUIpdRSkPFKHasmjoAL0ZuyIfxLRGy2dEwXUOCm3wOoqfevEQUlH +/let/fdiBqpoOvUmQVNMap1Q3w7Wn2kCgSAi2wPcu06jJmXTq7NOe5pChGYLOwPN3Df QXShqtM4kGQ003kMGCZFgq5zZqh1MOCAz1CJxW85khni2Wq69DQ2r8GdufLsKfxgojn7 3K/fOmohvW+OuNyfOrbGrsmGGMuCASC03Y3zub8YJSnMXfzxHgRScNvB0dEL5fP8qDOP g7qQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.103.4 with SMTP id fs4mr32782144pbb.58.1409503780122; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.221.158.193] ([166.170.38.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qa2sm8540636pdb.38.2014.08.31.09.49.38 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-0C0492F4-2647-4DDA-A22E-3DFBB5C60685"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DDEAFB@dfweml701-chm>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:49:37 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <D16FFD82-DF25-4944-81D9-A43C9A57426E@gmail.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DDEAFB@dfweml701-chm>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/lQf7lWdPi1x9VklmOZ9gHMhWPGs
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Questions on using LISP's signal free multicast for draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <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: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:49:42 -0000

> Dino,
>  
> At Toronto NV03 session, you suggested that draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework can use LISP’s signal free multicast scheme.
> After studying the draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00, I agree that the proposed scheme can definitely solve the problem of application initiated multicast in environment where underlay network don’t support any IP multicast protocol.

The design allows for either unicast or multicast RLOCs to be registered to the mapping system. So LISP signal-free multicast can be used when the underlay supports multicast. 

>  But there are some issues of using the LISP’s signal free multicast mechanism in Data Centers when NVEs, especially the server based hypervisor virtual switches,  don’t ( or can’t) support the “General Receiver-site procedure” documented in the “draft-farinacci-list-signal-free-multicast-00”.  The general

Whatever the application is going to use to tell the network what multicast groups are joined can be used as well. 

> receiver-site procedure requires egress edge (i.e. egress NVE) to terminate IGMP or PIM messages. But many NVEs (server based virtual switches) don’t terminate IGMP nor PIM.

Well if the virtual switch supports LISP, then the app directly tells the xTR which groups it is joining. 

And if the LISP xTR is one-hop northbound from the virtual switch, you can bet the virtual switch does IGMP snooping. 

>  Therefore, NVO3 needs a simpler scheme for “Receiver NVEs”.   draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-00 suggests all IGMP messages are sent to “multicast server”.

That is not simpler - that adds a new component to the network. 

And if you IGMP to a server why is that different than registering to a map-server. 

But since there is no precise serial spec'ed on how the NVE-to-NVA protocol works no one can tell what can be leveraged for multicast. 

LISP-signal-free-multicast works because the LISP mapping system protocols are well specified, implemented, and deployed. 

>  Or “Multicast server” can fake “IGMP query” to all the NVEs, which forwarded down to applications. The reply (IGMP report) can be automatically sent back to “multicast server” without NVE doing anything extra.
>  
> What do you think?

You want multicast routers to attach to the overlay. They don't send IGMP packets to each other.  

IGMP is a host-to-router protocol and has been abused to be a host-to-switch protocol. Let's stop the abuse.  :-)

Dino

>  
>  
> Linda
>