Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Mon, 10 August 2015 16:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BEB1B38B3; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.023
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, 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 JHXuVmQqbGSc; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8F9F1B38AC; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so28815679wic.0; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xznlNpLJxEo2ozNJY/IN/xlzDx5MkNywfUXs2QOXoQQ=; b=xXZUmd2FSCpv9QhL/AIW03VD0/jwi4lNiK7syqYA77I76UX2RDKZh76Xav9IqQ37sU ptngNuwy7PjCXg25LYrfLl4l5V8mrQeli72HvHRJsbcjKc4BBowc02vzCH3sw/1oCVlP SnyFPC7c1wufoDeZY++gUhjRJmQJ0wF5a/77Ou/h+H/5ENyivTwmMdslPltcNl97Rmej LAy2e6PnRtybQkiqwX5iAIacAA/PNBWB+97VjIouVEId4e8OMz4osSkcJBJhbepc6t7n x7t3/MA/tkKme6PS+Bi6Rbm2OWMOUUEB1HKs2FfSf+yDtl4SHAh/GZ3Org8Q+bVSsQGO Lumg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.209.167 with SMTP id mn7mr43905673wjc.64.1439223986394; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.27.23.79 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <03BEACC6-BEE0-4808-9F0E-5B27E38C495B@puck.nether.net>
References: <D1E42E95.A10A4%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> <CA+-tSzxO9UG2JZ_-TO7yz0YaUKQWfYDzYhY4-yPboWrULp00-A@mail.gmail.com> <03BEACC6-BEE0-4808-9F0E-5B27E38C495B@puck.nether.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:26:26 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: X3S3LcCpQQmC7caZk38bJEyahKg
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzyncNLw-R47X2VEYa+RXOGuTf5F6eOLX5dyHw+41gWyzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a8954761bd3051cf772d2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/5e_UxQaFojD8mQqJggFpgkPr3L8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@tools.ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:26:30 -0000
Hi Jon, Thanks for the follow up. DRNI (distributed resilient network interconnect) is part of the revised link aggregation spec (802.1AX-2014). It is now complete and folks can get a copy at: http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/802/802.1.html The spec actually allows for up to 3 nodes in a portal (optional capability; 2 is required). Anoop On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > Anoop - > > Thanks, helpful comments, please see [JM] inline. We will address these > in a version that covers comments post-WGLC. > > -Jon > > On Aug 5, 2015, at 9:04 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > Support. I have mostly minor comments included below. > > Anoop > > ====== > > > Section 2.3 > I had trouble understanding this statement: > >>> > > Operating large-scale infrastructure could be expensive, provided > that a larger amount of elements will statistically fail more often. > > >>> > Is it just trying to say that with a larger number of elements, likelihood > of seeing failures goes up? Or is it saying something else? > > > [JM] That's it, will simplify the wording in next revision. > > > Section 3.2.4 > >> > > If a data center network size is small, it is possible to reduce the > number of switches in Tier-1 or Tier-2 of Clos topology by a power of > two. > > >> > Should this say factor of 2? > > > [JM] Yes, good catch! 16->8, not 16->4. > > > Section 4.1 > >> > > The major downside of this > approach is the proprietary nature of such extensions. > > >> > The bigger issue is probably limited scalability because of the need for > synchronization between switches at a given tier level where the protocol > is implemented. Also wastage of ports to implement the inter-chassis > link. I say that because a standard for this now exists -- 802.1AX DRNI, > so technically, the proprietary nature is no longer a limiting factor. > > > [JM] I believe 802.1ax-rev is not technically completed the standards > process but I will discuss state and inability to scale such > implementations past a 1+1 model in a sentence or two in next rev. > > Section 4.1, para 2 > >> > > currently the maturity of the protocol > > >> > Did you mean lack of maturity? > > > [JM] Yes, will fix. > > > Section 4.3 > >>> > > Application providers and network operators continue > > to also develop new solutions to meet some of the requirements that > previously have driven large Layer 2 domains. > > >>> > Would be good to add a reference. > > > [JM] Rather than add 5 or 6 I think we can clarify that we are referring > to various overlay/tunneling techniques. > > > Section 5.2.1 > >>> > > A unique ASN is allocated per each group of Tier-2 devices. > > >>> > By group, do you mean all of the switches in a cluster (cluster being a > term previously defined)? Or is group something else? > > > [JM] Yes, we will clarify to mean cluster. > > > > Typos and minor editorial > =================== > > > [JM] Will address all below in next rev. > > > Section 2.4, line 6 > situation -> situations (or a situation) > > Section 4.1, line 11 > larger topologies many of the fundamentals -> > larger topologies, many of the fundamentals > > Section 4.2, last bullet > Layer-2 -> Layer 2 > Layer-3 -> Layer 3 > (Only instance where hyphens are used :)) > > Section 5.1, bullet 6 > >> > > It is worth mentioning that all widely deployed > link-state IGPs also feature periodic refreshes of routing > information, while BGP does not expire routing state, even if this > rarely causes significant impact to modern router control planes. > > >> > would read better as > >> > > It is worth mentioning that all widely deployed > link-state IGPs also feature periodic refreshes of routing > information even if this > rarely causes significant impact to modern router control planes, > > while BGP does not expire routing state. > > >> > > Section 5.1, last bullet > NRLI -> NLRI > > Section 5.2.3 > The section Section 8.2 -> Section 8.2 > > Section 5.2.5 > iBGP -> IBGP > > Section 5.2.5, 2nd bullet > >> > > device with the other devices in the Clos > > >> > change to > >> > > device compared with the other devices in the Clos > > >> > > Section 6.1, 3rd para, 2nd line > step (e) Section -> step (e) in Section > > Section 6.4, line 1 > used to ECMP -> used for ECMP > > Section 6.4, line 2 > minimizing -> minimize > > Section 7.1, 3rd para, 1st line > Ethernet technologies -> Ethernet links (or platforms) > > Section 7.1, 2nd line from bottom > it's -> its > > Section 7.4, 1st para after bullets, line 2 from bottom > only store -> only stores > > Section 7.5, line 4 from bottom > server IP address subnet -> server IP address subnets > > Section 8.1, 1st para, last line > iBGP -> IBGP > > Section 8.2, 2nd para, line 2 from bottom > Tiers -> tiers > > Section 8.2.2, line 9 > there is no failures -> there are no failures > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> > wrote: > >> Hi RTGWG, >> >> This email is to start 2 weeks RTGWG LC for >> draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05 >> Authors have addressed all the comments. >> >> Please indicate support or no-support as well as your comments by August >> 18, 2015. >> >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to >> this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >> The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will >> not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each >> author and each individual that has contributed to the document. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeff & Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> > >
- RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc Jeff Tantsura
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Petr Lapukhov
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Robert Raszuk
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Ebben Aries
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Jon Mitchell
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Ariff Premji
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Russ White
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Rick Casarez
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Uma Chunduri
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Mohan Nanduri
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Anoop Ghanwani
- 答复: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Lizhenbin
- (Updated)答复: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-ro… Lizhenbin
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Xuxiaohu
- RE: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Richard Li
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Jon Mitchell
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-lar… Jeffrey Haas