Subject: Re: [rrg] Next topic?

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:22:26 +0800

> -----邮件原件-----

> 发件人: Darrel Lewis [mailto:[email-masked]]

> 发送时间: 2011年5月13日 23:02

> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu

> 抄送: Darrel Lewis

> 主题: Re: [rrg] Next topic?

> On May 12, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Xu Xiaohu wrote:

> > Hi Tony and all,

> > In the past few years, RRG has done a lot of excellent research work 

> > to explore various ideas and approaches (e.g., map&encap, id/locator 

> > split and

> > translation...) to addressing the Internet routing scalability 

> > issue. Today it seems that the cloud Data Center Network (DCN) and 

> > Data Center Interconnection (DCI) scenarios are facing a similar 

> > scalability challenge (i.e., MAC forwarding table scalability 

> > issue). The demand for VM mobility within the whole large L2 data 

> > center network or even across geographically dispersed data centers 

> > is one major driving force of extending the L2 domain scope larger and
larger.

> > Although the reason for the MAC forwarding table scalability issue 

> > in the DCN/DCI scenarios is not the same as that for the Internet 

> > routing scalability issue,

> Why do you say this?  MAC addresses are exactly like PI IP addresses 

> architecturally!

Sorry for late response. Yes, your point is correct from this special
aspect:).  The reason that I mentioned includes both the external reason (e.
g., VM mobility v.s. multi-homing, traffic-engineering and PI address usage)
and internal reason (flat address v.s. overloading of IP address semantics).

> That is, they are not aggregatable, and the namespace appears flat to 

> the routing system.

Correct.

> > the ideas and approaches suitable for scaling the Internet routing 

> > system could be utilized to deal with the MAC forwarding table 

> > scalability issue.

> This is because its the same problem :-)

> > There are already many such attempts in reality, especially in the 

> > academic circle. VL2 , SEATTLE and MOOSE are good

> examples

> > of them.

> There are only 2 ways to skin this cat, either translation and 

> encapsulation, and they can either on the host or on the network.

Agree. However, since the application scenarios have some differences (e.g.,
site networks could be configured with a default IP route in the Internet
routing scenario while data center sites could not be configured with a
default MAC route in the DCI scenario...), it would better to investigate
whether the approaches we used before for scaling the Internet routing
system could be reused or even simplified to deal with the similar
scalability issue existed in the DCN/DCI scenarios.

Best regards,

Xiaohu 

> > Hence I suggest we spend some time to consider whether we could 

> > utilize

> our

> > experience which was obtained from the past and ongoing Internet 

> > routing scalability solution research to address the similar 

> > scalability issue existed in the DCN/DCI scenarios, for example, we 

> > could attempt or even develop those familiar ideas or approaches 

> > mentioned above to address the MAC table scalability issue in the
DCN/DCI scenarios.

> > Best regards,

> > Xiaohu

> >> -----邮件原件-----

> >> 发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Tony Li

> >> 发送时间: 2011年5月9日 1:18

> >> 收件人: [email-masked]

> >> 主题: [rrg] Next topic?

> >> Hi all,

> >> It's time to start the conversation about where the RRG is headed.

> > Towards

> >> that end, I'd like to open the floor for the discussion of topics.  

> >> Any

> > _research_

> >> topic within the broad area of routing and addressing is appropriate.

> >> I propose the following process: we hold this discussion this 

> >> month,

> > trying to

> >> identify relevant topics.  Each topic should have a succinct 

> >> statement of

> > its

> >> goals.  At the end of the month, we poll to determine the interest 

> >> level

> > in the

> >> various topics.  Those that seem to have critical mass are 

> >> recommended to the IRTF Chair for consideration.

> >> The default answer, if no topic has critical mass, is for the RG to 

> >> go on

> > hiatus.

> >> Any questions or comments on the process?

> >> Any proposals of research topics?

> >> The floor is open...

> >> Tony

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> rrg mailing list

> >> [email-masked]

> >> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

> > _______________________________________________

> > rrg mailing list

> > [email-masked]

> > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg