Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 12 December 2012 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
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 984C021E80F4 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:57:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mxuDNlAtbt3X for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A538C21E808D for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <trill@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:25 -0500
Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.166) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:13 -0500
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8449538C8045 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBCJvC0w293948 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:13 -0500
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBCJvCca011660 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:12 -0500
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-49-151-5.mts.ibm.com [9.49.151.5]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id qBCJvBof011572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:12 -0500
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id qBCJvAcP013288; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:10 -0500
Message-Id: <201212121957.qBCJvAcP013288@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE1935628892DF6@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
References: <CAFOuuo4zvX5AtD-oGRRftuZaKmhY7C7-SvDjznMOdzUj+Q3fGQ@mail.gmail.com> <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE1935628892DF6@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> message dated "Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:27:21 +0000."
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:10 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12121219-5806-0000-0000-00001CE638EC
Cc: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:57:29 -0000

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> writes:

> > Proposed rule: R1, R2, and R3 should use the pseudonode nickname
> >  when encapsulating unicast, but use their own nickname when
> >  encapsulating multidestination.
>  
> > Result: R8 will see endnode changes for E, but not very frequent; R8
> >  will only see changes when traffic from E alternates between
> >  multidestination and unicast.
 
> [Answer] This depends on the traffic Radia. You cannot assume all
>  multicast hash to Node R1 and all unicast to R2 and R3 and hence
>  multicast unicast address ping pong is rare. In the contrary, you
>  could have heavy multicast stream and a unicast stream both hashing
>  in to the same RBridge RB1.

I'm with Tissa on this one. I'm wary about making assumptions about
"likely traffic patterns" and then making architectural decisions
based on that. We could easily get burned down the road.
 
> > Question: Are perceived endnode moves a problem?  Why?
 
> [Answer] Yes it is big time.  Unlike ancient devices modern devices
>  to hardware based learning. When address association start moving,
>  it will constantly bombard the CPU with new address or address move
>  notifications.

One thing that would help I think would be to actually list the issues
associated "MAC flapping" (i.e., where the FDB entries for a given
destination Etherent MAC addr keeps flip flopping) in terms of best
egress RB.

Are the issues exactly the same as for regular bridges? Or are there
additional nuances? What breaks or causes pain when entries flap?

Possible issues:

1) the paths packets take for a given destination could switch between
2 (or more) paths. This could lead to out-of-order packet
delivery. TCP doesn't like this. OAM may not like it either. (It's one
thing to have occasional router flaps, its another to have them be a
steady-state feature.)

2) Some implementations require software "help" to update FDB
entries. I.e., changes are not done 100% by the ASICs. While that may
change in the future, this could be an issue today for some
implemntations. How common is this problem? Do we have a sense?

What else? 

Thomas