Subject: [armd] comments to "draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-00"

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:54:14 +0000

Thomas,

Thanks for the good draft has captured the ARP/ND scaling issues in data center really well.

A few more minor comments to the draft:

-        Section 4.1, second paragraph: should indicate the inconvenience when there is  no "VM move" involved. E.g. "One of the disadvantages is that a server can't be re-loaded with a different application in different IP subnet without IP address re-configuration on switches".

-        Section 3, second paragraph: Why do you say "servers are often pre-configured to run with a given set of IP addresses"?  Do you mean "servers often have to run with a fixed set of IP addresses depending on which access switches they are under"?

-        Section 3, second paragraph: "if each top of rack switch is placed within it is own subnet", do you mean "if all the servers in one subnet are under one ToR"?

-        Page 5, the last sentence of the  Second paragraph: "all servers on a single large L2 network": many people interpret "a single large L2 network"  as one large broadcast domain (and forget there could be many VLANs).

To be more accurate:
"management is simplified if each ToR enables all VLANs (with each VLAN  commonly mapped to one subnet) so that servers can be placed anywhere"

-        Section 1: last sentence of the first paragraph: Should  "L2 Link"  be "L2 Links"?

Linda