[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-narten-armd-problem-statement) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6820

Internet Engineering Task Force                                T. Narten
Internet-Draft                                                       IBM
Intended status: Informational                          October 18, 2011
Expires: April 20, 2012


                       Problem Statement for ARMD
                  draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-00

Abstract

   This document examines issues related to the massive scaling of data
   centers.  Our initial scope is relatively narrow.  Specifically, we
   focus on address resolution (ARP and ND) within the data center.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Representative Data Center Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Scenario 1: L3 Terminates at the Access Link . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Scenario 2: L3 Terminates at the Aggregation Switch  . . .  7
   5.  Address Resolution in IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Problem Itemization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  ARP Processing on Routers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  MAC Address Table Size Limitations in Switches . . . . . .  9
   7.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
































Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document examines issues related to the massive scaling of data
   centers.  Specifically, we focus on address resolution (ARP in IPv4
   and Neighbor Discovery in IPv6) within the data center.  Although
   strictly speaking the scope of address resolution is confined to a
   single L2 broadcast domain (i.e., ARP runs at the L2 layer below IP),
   the issue is complicated by routers with many interfaces (on which
   address resolution is performed) or with IEEE 802.1Q domains, where
   individual VLANs form their own broadcast domains.  Thus, the scope
   of address resolution spans both the L2 link and the devices attached
   to those links.

   This document is intended to support the ARMD WG identify potential
   future work areas.  The scope of this document intentionally starts
   out relatively narrow, mirroring the ARMD WG charter.  Expanding the
   scope requires careful thought, as the topic of scaling data centers
   generally has an almost unbounded potential scope.  This document
   aims to list "pain points" that are being experienced in current data
   centers.  It is separate exercise to determine which (if any) of
   these pain points should lead to specific protocol work, whether in
   ARMD or some other WG.


2.  Terminology

   Application:  a service that runs on either a physical or virtual
      machine, providing a service (e.g., web server, database server,
      etc.)

   Broadcast Domain:  The set of all links and switches that are
      traversed in order to reach all nodes that are members of a given
      L2 domain.  For example, when sending a broadcast packet on a
      VLAN, the domain would include all the links and switches that the
      packet traverses when broadcast traffic is sent.

   Host (or server):  Physical machine on which a system is run.  A
      system can consist of an application running on an operating
      system on the "bare metal" or multiple applications running within
      individual VMs on top of a hypervisor.  Traditional non-
      virtualized systems will have a single (or small number of) IP
      addresses assigned to them.  In contrast, a virtualized system
      will use many IP addresses, one for the hypervisor plus one (or
      more) for each individual VM.







Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   Hypervisor:  Software running on a host that allows multiple VMs to
      run on the same host.

   L2 domain:   IEEE802.1Q domain supporting up to 4095 VLANs.  The
      notion of an L2 broadcast domain is closely tied to individual
      VLANs.  Broadcast traffic (or flooding to reach all destinations)
      reaches every member of the specific VLAN being used.

   Virtual machine (VM):  A software implementation of a physical
      machine that runs programs as if they were executing on a bare
      machine.  Applications do not know they are running on a VM as
      opposed to running on a "bare" host or server.


3.  Background

   Large, flat L2 networks have long been known to have scaling
   problems.  As the size of an L2 network increases, the level of
   broadcast traffic from protocols like ARP increases.  Large amounts
   of broadcast traffic pose a particular burden because every device
   (switch, host and router) must process and possibly act on such
   traffic.  In addition, large L2 networks can be subject to "broadcast
   storms".  The conventional wisdom for addressing such problems has
   been to say "don't do that".  That is, split large L2 networks into
   multiple smaller L2 networks, each operating as its own L3/IP subnet.
   Numerous data center networks have been designed with this principle,
   e.g., with each rack placed within its own L3 IP subnet.  By doing
   so, the broadcast domain (and address resolution) is confined to one
   Top of Rack switch, which works well from a scaling perspective.
   Unfortunately, this conflicts in some ways with the current trend
   towards dynamic work load shifting in data centers and increased
   virtualization as discussed below.

   Workload placement has become an issue within data centers.  Ideally,
   it is desirable to be able to move workloads around within a data
   center in order to optimize server utilization, add additional
   servers in response to increased demand, etc.  However, servers are
   often pre-configured to run with a given set of IP addresses.
   Placement of such servers is then subject to constraints of the IP
   addressing restrictions of the data center.  For example, servers
   configured with addresses from a particular subnet could only be
   placed where they connect to the IP subnet corresponding to their IP
   addresses.  If each top of rack switch is placed within its own
   subnet, a server can only be connected to the one top of rack switch.
   This same constraint occurs in virtualized environments, as discussed
   next.

   Server virtualization is fast becoming the norm in data centers.



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   With server virtualization, each physical server supports multiple
   virtual servers, each running its own operating system, middleware
   and applications.  Virtualization is a key enabler of workload
   agility, i.e., allowing any server to host any application and
   providing the flexibility of adding, shrinking, or moving services
   among the physical infrastructure.  Server virtualization provides
   numerous benefits, including higher utilization, increased data
   security, reduced user downtime, and even significant power
   conservation, along with the promise of a more flexible and dynamic
   computing environment.

   The discussion below focuses on VM placement and migration.  Keep in
   mind, however, that even in a non-virtualized environment, many of
   the same issues apply to individual workloads running on standalone
   machines.  For example, when increasing the number of servers running
   a particular workload to meet demand, placement of those workload may
   be constrained by IP subnet numbering considerations.

   The greatest flexibility in VM and workload management occurs when it
   is possible to place a VM (or workload) anywhere in the data center
   regardless of what IP addresses the VM uses and how the physical
   network is laid out.  In practice, movement of VMs within a data
   center is easiest when VM placement and movement does not conflict
   with the IP subnet boundaries of the data center's network, so that
   the VM's IP address need not be changed to reflect its actual point
   of attachment on the network from an L3/IP perspective.  In contrast,
   if a VM moves to a new IP subnet, its address must change, and
   clients will need to be made aware of that change.  From a VM
   management perspective, management is simplified if all servers are
   on a single large L2 network.

   With virtualization, a single physical server can host 10 (or more)
   VMs, each having its own IP (and MAC) addresses.  Consequently, the
   number of addresses per machine (and hence per subnet) is increasing,
   even when the number of physical machines stays constant.  Today, it
   is not uncommon to support 10 VMs per physical server.  In a few
   years, the number will likely reach 100 VMs per physical server.

   In the past, services were static in the sense that they tended to
   stay in one physical place.  A service installed on a machine would
   stay on that machine because the cost of moving a service elsewhere
   was generally high.  Moreover, services would tend to be placed in
   such a way as to facilitate communication locality.  That is, servers
   would be physically located near the services they accessed most
   heavily.  The network traffic patterns in such environments could
   thus be optimized, in some cases keeping significant traffic local to
   one network segment.  In these more static and carefully managed
   environments, it was possible to build networks that approached



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   scaling limitations, but did not actually cross the threshold.

   Today, with the proliferation of VMs, traffic patterns are becoming
   more diverse and less predictable.  In particular, there can easily
   be less locality of network traffic as services are moved for such
   reasons as reducing overall power usage (by consolidating VMs and
   powering off idle machine) or to move a virtual service to a physical
   server with more capacity or a lower load.  In today's changing
   environments, it is becoming more difficult to engineer networks as
   traffic patterns continually shift as VMs move around.

   In summary, both the size and density of L2 networks is increasing.
   In addition, increasingly dynamic workloads and the increased usage
   of VMs is creating pressure for ever larger L2 networks.  Today,
   there are already data centers with 120,000 physical machines.  That
   number will only increase going forward.  In addition, traffic
   patterns within a data center are changing.


4.  Representative Data Center Designs

   This section outlines some general data center designs and how they
   impact address resolution.  These designs may only approximate what
   happens in real data centers, but it is hoped that they can serve as
   a useful vehicle for describing pain points that are being
   experienced today in current data centers.

   Many data centers build their L2 networks using a two-tier approach
   consisting of access and aggregation switches.  Servers connect to
   access switches (e.g., top-of-rack switches) and access switches in
   turn are interconnected via aggregation switches.  In the following,
   we describe two common layouts.

4.1.  Scenario 1: L3 Terminates at the Access Link

   In Scenario 1, the L3 network extends all the way to the access
   switches, with the L2 broadcast domain terminated at the access
   switch.  All servers attached to an access switch are part of the
   same L2 broadcast domain and the same IP subnet.  Each access switch
   terminates its own L2 broadcast domain, and machines connected to
   different access switches are numbered out of different IP subnets.
   This approach works well from an address resolution perspective
   because the overall number of machines (physical and virtual) in a
   single L2 domain is relatively small, e.g., in the low hundreds.

   The main disadvantage to this scenario is that VMs cannot easily be
   moved from a server attached to one access switch to a server on a
   different access switch, as doing so requires changing the VM's IP



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   address, or taking additional steps at the IP routing level to ensure
   that traffic continues to reach the VM at its new location, even
   though its IP address no longer matches the subnet configuration of
   the physical network.

4.2.  Scenario 2: L3 Terminates at the Aggregation Switch

   In Scenario 2, the L3 network extends only to the aggregation
   switches (or perhaps to routers that connect to the aggregation
   switches).  The aggregation switches (or the routers that connect to
   multiple aggregation switches) could terminate multiple distinct IP
   subnets (e.g., one per VLAN) or one large IP subnet.  In order to let
   hosts belonging to different IP subnets be placed under any access
   switches, it is necessary for access switches to enable multiple
   VLANs and aggregation switches to enable some VLANs (or subnets) over
   many physical ports.  This configuration breaks the confinement of
   the VLAN's broadcast domain and makes it equivalent to all the access
   switches being part of the same L2 broadcast domain (and IP subnet).
   Thus, this configuration allows VMs to be moved to servers connected
   to other access switches, but increases the size of the L2 broadcast
   domain, which can lead to difficulties outlined below.


5.  Address Resolution in IPv4

   In IPv4, ARP provides the function of address resolution.  To
   determine the link-layer address of a given IP address, a node
   broadcasts an ARP Request.  The request is delivered to all portions
   of the L2 network, and the node with the requested IP address replies
   with an ARP response.  ARP is an old protocol, and by current
   standards, is sparsely documented.  For example, there are no clear
   requirement for retransmitting ARP requests in the absence of
   replies.  Consequently, implementations vary in the details of what
   they actually implement [RFC0826][RFC1122].

   From a scaling perspective, there are a number of problems with ARP.
   First, it uses broadcast, and any network with a large number of
   attached hosts will see a correspondingly large amount of broadcast
   ARP traffic.  The second problem is that it is not feasible to change
   host implementations of ARP - current implementations are too widely
   entrenched, and any changes to host implementations of ARP would take
   years to become sufficient deployed to matter.  That said, it may be
   possible to change ARP implementations in hypervisors, L2/L3 boundary
   routers, and/or ToR access switches, to leverage such techniques as
   Proxy ARP and/or OpenFlow infused directory assistance approaches.
   Finally, ARP needs to take steps in order to flush out stale or
   changed entries.  However, the existing standards do not provide
   clear implementation guidelines for how to do this.  Consequently,



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   some implementations are "chatty" in that they just periodically
   flush caches every few minutes and rerun ARP.


6.  Problem Itemization

   This section articulates some specific problems or "pain points" that
   are related to large data centers.  It is a future activity to
   determine which of these areas can or will be addressed by ARMD or
   some other IETF WG.

6.1.  ARP Processing on Routers

   One pain point with large L2 broadcast domains is that the routers
   connected to the L2 domain need to process "a lot of" ARP traffic.
   Even though the vast majority of ARP traffic may well not be for that
   router, the router still has to process enough of the ARP request to
   determine it can safely be ignored.  The ARP algorithm specifies that
   a recipient must update its ARP cache if it receives an ARP query
   from a source for which it has an entry [RFC0826].

   A common router architecture has ARP processing handled in a "slow
   path" software processor rather than directly by a hardware ASIC as
   is the case when forwarding packets.  Such a design significantly
   limits the rate at which ARP traffic can be processed.  Current
   implementations today can support in the low thousands of ARP packets
   per second.

   To further reduce the ARP load, some routers have implemented
   additional optimizations in their ASIC fast paths.  For example, some
   routers can be configured to discard ARP requests for target
   addresses other than those assigned to the router.  That way, the
   router's software processor only recieves ARP requests for addresses
   it owns and must respond to.  This can significantly reduce the
   number of ARP requests that must be processed by the router.

   Another optimization concerns reducing the number of ARP queries
   targeted at routers, whether for address resolution or to validate
   existing cache entries.  Some routers can be configured to send out
   periodic gratuitous ARPs, helping to reduce the number of ARP queries
   they receive.  The gratuitous ARP pre-populates the ARP caches on
   neighboring devices, or refreshes the "last validated" timestamp on
   such entries, reducing the number of ARP queries they send to the
   router.

   Finally, another area concerns how routers process IP packets for
   which no ARP entry exists.  Such packets must be held in a queue
   while address resolution is performed.  Once an ARP query has been



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   resolved, the packet is forwarded on.  Again, the processing of such
   packets is handled in the "slow path".  This effectively limits the
   number of ARP "cache misses" that a router can process and is viewed
   as a problem in some networks today.

   Although address-resolution traffic remains local to one L2 network,
   some data center designs terminate L2 subnets at individual
   aggregation routers (i.e., Scenario 2).  Such routers can be
   connected to a large number of interfaces (e.g., 100).  While the
   address resolution traffic on any one interface may be manageable,
   the aggregate address resolution traffic across all interfaces can
   become problematic.

   Another variant of Scenario 2 has individual routers servicing a
   relatively small number of interfaces, with the individual interfaces
   themselves serving very large subnets.  Once again, it is the
   aggregate quantity of ARP traffic seen across all of the router's
   interfaces that can be problematic.  This "pain point" is essentially
   the same as the one discussed above, the only difference being
   whether a given number of hosts are spread across a few large subnets
   or many smaller ones.

6.2.  MAC Address Table Size Limitations in Switches

   L2 switches maintain L2 MAC address forwarding tables for all sources
   and destinations traversing through the switch.  These tables are
   populated through learning and are used to forward L2 frames to their
   correct destination.  The larger the L2 domain, the larger the tables
   have to be.  While in theory a switch only needs to keep track of
   addresses it is actively using, switches flood broadcast frames
   (e.g., from ARP), multicast frames (e.g., from Neighbor Discovery)
   and unicast frames to unknown destinations.  Switches add entries for
   the source addresses of such flooded frames to their forwarding
   tables.  Consequently, MAC address table size can become a problem as
   the size of the L2 domain increases.  The table size problem is made
   worse with VMs, where a single physical machine now hosts ten (or
   more) VMs, since each has its own MAC address that is visible to
   switches.

   In Scenario 1, the size of MAC address tables in switches s not
   generally a problem.  In Scenario 2, however MAC table size
   limitations can be a real issue. [xxx: do we have numbers?  For what
   size L2 broadcast domains do we start seeing problems? ]


7.  Summary

   This document has outlined a number of problems or "pain points"



Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


   related to address resolution in large data centers.


8.  Open Issues

   1.  The document concentrates on ARP, but the same analysis needs to
       be performed for IPv6's Neighbor Discovery.


9.  Acknowledgments

   This document has been significanlty improved by comments from Linda
   Dunbar and Sue Hares.  Igor Gashinsky deserves addition credit for
   highlighting some of the ARP-related pain points and for clarifying
   the difference between what the standards require and what some
   router vendors have actually implemented in response to operator
   requests.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes not request of IANA.


11.  Security Considerations

   This documents lists existing problems or pain points with address
   resolution in data centers.  This document does not create any
   security implications nor does it have any security implications.
   The security vulnerabilities in ARP are well known and this document
   does not change or mitigate them in any way.


12.  Informative References

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, November 1982.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.









Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                armd-problem                  October 2011


Author's Address

   Thomas Narten
   IBM

   Email: narten@us.ibm.com













































Narten                   Expires April 20, 2012                [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/