Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge
zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn Fri, 14 December 2012 03:33 UTC
Return-Path: <zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA0C21F8849; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:33:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_QUOTING=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0N-KvKZkVctk; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F7A21F87B3; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 7F3F613236; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:33:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BF84272537F; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:22:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qBE3XEAV029443; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:33:14 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <OF2917B755.CCA8E34E-ON48257AD4.0008BD50-48257AD4.000DE9CB@LocalDomain>
To: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 9AA48005:287A265A-48257AD4:00127A93; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF9AA48005.287A265A-ON48257AD4.00127A93-48257AD4.0013C340@zte.com.cn>
From: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:33:11 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-12-14 11:33:07, Serialize complete at 2012-12-14 11:33:07
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0013C33E48257AD4_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn qBE3XEAV029443
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, trill-bounces@ietf.org, Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:33:33 -0000
> So pseudonode nickname is not fit for active-active edge. Maybe I need to clarify what the pseudo-nickname is in PN draft. Pseudo-nickname is a nickname that identifies a group of Rbridges(e.g, a RBv), not a pseudonode. And this nickname is advertised in each member RBridge's LSP, not it's pseudonode LSP. Furthormore, there is no member RBridge originates pseudonode LSPs in active-active edge, since they can see each other's hellos. If pseudo-nickname confuses some one in this WG, we can change it to RBv-nickname. Best Regards, Zhai Hongjun """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Protocol Development Dept.VI, Central R&D Institute, ZTE Corporation No. 68, Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, P.R.China, 210012 Zhai Hongjun Tel: +86-25-52877345 Email: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 胡方伟175772/user/zte_ltd 2012-12-14 10:31 收件人 Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> 抄送 Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, trill-bounces@ietf.org, "Tissa Senevirathne \(tsenevir\)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>, zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com> 主题 Re: Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge There is only one RBridge(that is AF) to do the TRILL encapuslation in the shared LAN link scenario.So we can introduce the pseudonode nickname to identy the shared link, and avoid the potential data loss when AF changed. While it is different for the active-active edge scenario: all the RBridges in the LAG-group should do the TRILL encapsulation, and the RBridge cannot see Hellos from each other, there is no AF in this case actually. So pseudonode nickname is not fit for active-active edge. We could use the control protocol(for example, ESADI )to learn the MAC and nickname, and avoid the MAC flip by adding a new ID(link-ID). If the remote receives two records with the same Link-ID,it should think both of them are Ok. R1 and R2 tell R8 that H1 is multi-homing to the trill campus, they use the same Link-ID to identify the LAG-group. When R8 receives the information, it keeps two records for H1, one is R1, and the other is R2. The back data frame could choice either R1 or R2 as the egress nickname. If the link between H1 and R2 fails, the record R2 is clear. If there is another link for H1, say R3, and R3 uses the same link-id, so R8 keeps another record for H1. Best regards. Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> 发件人: trill-bounces@ietf.org 2012-12-14 02:10 收件人 zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn 抄送 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, trill-bounces@ietf.org, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, "Tissa Senevirathne \(tsenevir\)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> 主题 Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Answering Zhai Hongjun's questions: Why it is necessary to have a different pseuonode nickname if the upllnk is to different sets of RBridges: If hypervisor H1 has uplinks to R1, R2, and R3, and uses pseudonode nickname P1, and hypervisor H2 has uplinks to R1 and R2 (or even had uplinks to R1, R2, and R3, but its link to R3 fails), then if H1 and H2 use the same nickname, say P1, then traffic for H2's MAC addresses might get sent to R3 (since R3 has to claim to be connected to P1 because it is, for H1). But it is no longer attached to H2 because H2's uplink to R3 failed. The safest thing would be for every hypervisor to have a nickname. So, how many hypervisors are there likely to be? How usual would it be for all of them to attach to the same set of uplinks, so that we can use the same pseuodnode nickname? Do we care about the case of one of a hypervisor's uplinks failing, in which case, would the RBridges know? If R3 (the one to which the uplink failed) know? Would R1 and R2 know? Even if R3 knew, how could it alert R1 and R2 to now use a different pseudonode nickname for H2? Would it be obvious to them which of the hypervisors that have uplinks to R1, R2, and R3 they are referring to? All of this must be configured, I assume, and if the configuration is wrong, then who knows what happens..presumably that traffic may or may not get delivered to a hypervisor. And even if configured properly, what happens when uplinks fail? Again, presumably, traffic may or may not get delivered to the hypervisor whose uplink fails. ------------- As for VLANs...that actually is not a problem here, since we're not using AFs. The hypervisor determines which uplink to send something to. And which tree is being used for distribution determines which of R1, R2, or R3 will decapsulate the packet. So the main sort of configuration that I can think of, off the top of my head, is which pseudonodes go with which hypervisors. And I do think configuration is scary, especially if there's no "sanity check" whereby the RBs can compare notes. I don't know how R1 can know that a particular port is to "H1" so that it can inform R2 (via LSPs?) that R1 is attached to H1, and R2 can notice that it, indeed, is also attached to H1. -------- And part of the description of the problem would be answering questions like how many uplinks would need to be supported. Two at most? 30? If a lot, then solutions that require a tree for every uplink would be problematic if implementations don't want to support that many trees. Or is it OK to require lots of trees? So I think there are lots of things that should be written down, as part of describing the problem. Radia On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:03 AM, <zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn> wrote: Hi Radia > This case is scary because the RBridges on the uplink cannot see Hellos from each other, > so if misconfigured, at the very least I could imagine multiple RBridges decapsulating > multicast from the campus to the hypervisor. > Anyway...how many uplinks do we need to support? Do we care about problems due to misconfiguration? I don't know what the misconfiguration refers to. Is it the set of VLANs for which an Rbridge acts as AF? > Are there cases where there are lots of hypervisors, where they attach to different subsets of edge RBs? > In that case, we might eat up a lot of nicknames, since if one hypervisor is attached to {R1, R2}, > and another is attached to {R1, R2, R3}, they cannot use the same pseudonode nickname. I don't know why the two sets of RBridges can not use the same pseudo-nickname. If the learned MAC addresses can be shared among member Rbridges of an RBv and TRILL data frames can be tunneled to another member Rbridge that can egress the frame, I think they can use the same pseudo-nickname. If I am wrong, please correct me. Best Regards, Zhai Hongjun """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Protocol Development Dept.VI, Central R&D Institute, ZTE Corporation No. 68, Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, P.R.China, 210012 Zhai Hongjun Tel: +86-25-52877345 Email: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> 发件人: trill-bounces@ietf.org 2012-12-13 15:13 收件人 Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com> 抄送 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, "Tissa Senevirathne \(tsenevir\)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>, "trill@ietf.org" < trill@ietf.org> 主题 Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge I think it would be good to have a document that explains the problem...I certainly don't believe I know all the cases that need to be solved. I think I understand the hypervisor case...where the hypervisor decides which uplink to send things to, and never forwards between the up-links. This case is scary because the RBridges on the uplink cannot see Hellos from each other, so if misconfigured, at the very least I could imagine multiple RBridges decapsulating multicast from the campus to the hypervisor. Anyway...how many uplinks do we need to support? Do we care about problems due to misconfiguration? In cases like this, is it common to also have pt-to-pt links between all the RBs attaching to the hypervisor? If so, then it seems like it would be possible for them to coordinate to at least detect misconfiguration, and possibly play games with forwarding messages to each other (e.g., if one of them is not attached to a tree and needs to encapsulate a multidestination frame). How many trees does the campus need? Are there cases where there are lots of hypervisors, where they attach to different subsets of edge RBs? In that case, we might eat up a lot of nicknames, since if one hypervisor is attached to {R1, R2}, and another is attached to {R1, R2, R3}, they cannot use the same pseudonode nickname. Are there cases other than hypervisors? I think there are cases of bridges that have this behavior (a port with a bunch of endnodes, and several up-links, where the bridge does not forward between the up-links. If this has been written down anywhere, can anyone point me to it? If not, it seems really prudent to answer these (and I'm sure other) questions before arguing about specific solutions. Radia _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
- [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Sunny Rajagopalan
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Sunny Rajagopalan
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Mingui Zhang
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Mingui Zhang
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge zhai.hongjun
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge zhai.hongjun
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge hu.fangwei
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge zhai.hongjun
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge zhai.hongjun
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Mingui Zhang
- Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge Anoop Ghanwani
- [trill] Problem Statement: TRILL Active/Active Ed… Mingui Zhang