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
>>
>
>