[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

ARMD                                                          L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                                 Huawei
Intended status: Information Track                           W. Kumari
Expires: July 2012                                             Google
                                                          I. Gashinsky
                                                                Yahoo
                                                       January 3, 2012


               BCP for ARP-ND Scaling for Large Data Centers

                draft-dunbar-armd-arp-nd-scaling-bcp-00.txt


Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 3, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



                        Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   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 BSD License.

Abstract

   This draft is intended to document some simple well established
   practices which can scale ARP/ND in data center environment.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 0.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Terminology ................................................. 3
   3. Potential Solutions to Scale Address Resolution in D......... 4
      3.1. Layer 3 solution........................................ 4
      3.2. Commonly practiced Layer 2 solution to scale address
      resolution .................................................. 5
         3.2.1. When a host needs to communicate with an external peer
           ......................................................... 5
         3.2.2. When the L2/L3 boundary router receives an IP packet
         towards a host in one of its subnets: ..................... 6
         3.2.3. Hosts in two different subnets served by the router
         communicate with each other ............................... 7
      3.3. Static ARP/ND entries on switches ....................... 7
      3.4. DNS based solution  ..................................... 7
      3.5. ARP/ND Proxy approaches ................................. 8
      3.6. Overlay models .......................................... 9
   4. Summary and Recommendations ................................. 10
   5. Manageability Considerations ................................ 10
   6. Security Considerations ..................................... 10
   7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 10
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 10
   9. References .................................................. 10
   Authors' Addresses ............................................. 11
   Intellectual Property Statement  ............................... 11
   Disclaimer of Validity ......................................... 12






Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


1. Introduction

   As described in [ARMD-Problems], the increasing trend of rapid
   workload shifting and server virtualization in modern data centers
   is requiring servers to be loaded (or re-loaded) with different
   hosts or applications at different times. Those different hosts
   loaded to one physical server may have different IP addresses, or
   even be in different IP subnets.
   In order to allow a physical server to be re-loaded with hosts in
   different subnets, or VMs to be moved to different server racks
   without IP address re-configuration, the corresponding networks have
   to have multiple broadcast domains (many VLANs) on the interfaces of
   L2/L3 boundary routers and ToR switches. Unfortunately, this kind of
   network can lead to address resolution scaling issues, especially on
   the L2/L3 boundary routers, when the combined number of hosts in all
   those subnets is large.
   This document describes some potential solutions which can minimize
   the ARP/ND scaling issues in a Data Center environment.

2. Terminology

   ARP:    IPv4 Address Resolution Protocol [RFC826]

   Aggregation Switch: A Layer 2 switch interconnecting ToR switches

   Bridge:  IEEE802.1Q compliant device. In this draft, Bridge is used
             interchangeably with Layer 2 switch.

   DC:      Data Center

   DA:     Destination Address

   EOR:    End of Row switches in data center.

   NA:     IPv6's Neighbor Advertisement

   ND:     IPv6's Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]

   NS:     IPv6's Neighbor Solicitation

   SA:     Source Address

   ToR:    Top of Rack Switch. It is also known as access switch.



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   UNA:    IPv6's Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement

   VM:     Virtual Machines



3. Potential Solutions to Scale Address Resolution in DC

   The following solutions have been indicated by data center operators:

     1) layer-3 connectivity to the access switch,

     2) practices to scale ARP/ND in layer 2,

     3) static ARP/ND entries,

     4) DNS based approaches, and

     5) Extensions to proxy ARP [RFC1027].



   There is no single solution that fits all cases.  This section
   suggests the best practices for each type of solution.

3.1. Layer 3 solution

   This is referring to the network design with Layer 3 to the access
   switches.

   As described in [ARMD-Problem], many data centers are designed this
   way, so that ARP/ND broadcast/multicast messages are confined to a
   few ports (interfaces) of the access switches (i.e. ToR switches).

   Another variant of the Layer 3 solution is Layer 3 all the way to
   servers, or even to the VMs. Then the ARP/ND broadcast/multicast
   messages are further confined to the small number of hosts within the
   server, or none at all.

   Advantage: Both ARP/ND scales well. There is no address resolution
   issue in this design.

   Disadvantage: The main disadvantage to this solution is that IP
   addresses have to be re-configured on switches when a server needs to
   be re-loaded with an application in different subnet, or VMs need to
   be moved to a different location.



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   Recommendation: This solution is more suitable to data centers which
   have static workload or network operators who can properly re-
   configure IP addresses/subnets on switches before any workload
   change.  No protocol changes are suggested.

3.2. Commonly practiced Layer 2 solution to scale address resolution

   L2/L3 boundary routers can be heavily impacted by the ARP/ND
   broadcast/multicast messages in a Layer 2 domain which is mapped to
   one or multiple subnets (or VLANs) with combined large number of
   hosts in all subnets. This section describes some commonly used
   practices in reducing the ARP/ND processing required on L2/L3
   boundary (or gateway) routers.

3.2.1. When a host needs to communicate with an external peer:

   When the external peer is in a different subnet, the originating host
   needs to send ARP/ND requests to its default gateway router to get
   router's MAC address. If there are many subnets enabled on the
   gateway router with large combined number of hosts in all those
   subnets, the gateway router has to process a very large number of
   ARP/ND requests, which is CPU intensive.

   Solution: For IPv4 networks, a common practice to alleviate this
   problem is to have the L2/L3 boundary router (or gateway router) send
   periodic gratuitous ARP messages, so that all the connected hosts can
   refresh their ARP caches. As the result, most hosts, if not all,
   won't send ARP messages to gateway routers when they need to
   communicate with external hosts.

   However, IPv6 hosts are still required to send ND messages, via
   unicast, to their default gateway router even with their gateway
   routers periodically sending Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement. This
   is due to IPv6 requiring bi-directional path validation before a data
   packet can be sent.

   Advantage: Reduction of ARP requests to be processed by L2/L3
   boundary router for IPv4.

   Disadvantage: No reduction of ND processing on L2/L3 boundary router
   for IPv6 traffic.





Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   Recommendation: Use for IPv4-only networks, or change the ND protocol
   to allow data frames to be sent without requiring bidirectional frame
   validation.



3.2.2. When the L2/L3 boundary router receives an IP packet towards a
              host in one of its subnets:

   When the source address is in a different subnet and the target is
   not in router's ARP/ND cache, the router usually holds the packet and
   triggers an ARP/ND request to make sure the target actually exists in
   its L2 domain. The router may need to send multiple ARP/ND requests
   until either a timeout is reached or an ARP/ND reply is received.
   After this the gateway router can forward the data packets towards
   the target's MAC address. This process is not only CPU intensive but
   also buffer intensive.

   Solution: For IPv4 network, a common practice to alleviate this
   problem is by an L2/L3 boundary router (or gateway router) snooping
   ARP messages, so that its ARP cache can be refreshed with active
   hosts in its L2 domain. As a result, there is an increased likelihood
   of the router's ARP cache having the IP-MAC entry when it receives
   data frames from external subnets.

   For IPv6 hosts, routers are supposed to send ND unicast even if it
   has snooped UNA/NS/NA from those hosts. Therefore, this practice
   doesn't help IPv6 very much.

   Advantage: Reduction of ARP requests which routers have to send upon
   receiving IPv4 packets and the amount of IPv4 data frames from
   external subnets which routers have to hold.

   Disadvantage: The amount of ND processing on routers for IPv6 traffic
   is not reduced. Even for IPv4, Routers still need to hold data
   packets from external subnets and trigger ARP requests if the targets
   of the data packets either don't exist or are not very active.

   Recommendation: Do not use with IPv6 or make protocol changes to
   IPv6's ND. For IPv4, if there are higher chance of routers receiving
   data packets towards non-existing or inactive targets, alternative
   approaches should be considered.




Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


3.2.3. Hosts in two different subnets served by the router communicate
              with each other

   The router will be hit twice under this scenario. Once for the
   originating host in subnet-A initiating ARP/ND request to the gateway
   (3.2.1 above); and the second for the gateway to initiate ARP/ND
   requests to the target in subnet-B (3.2.2 above).

   Again, practices described in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 can alleviate problems
   in IPv4 network, but don't help very much for IPv6.

   Advantage: reduction of ARP processing on L2/L3 boundary routers for
   IPv4 traffic.

   Disadvantage: For IPv6 traffic, there is no reduction of ND
   processing on L2/L3 boundary routers.

   Recommendation: do not use with IPv6 or consider other approaches.

3.3. Static ARP/ND entries on switches

   In a data center environment, applications placement to servers,
   racks, and rows may be orchestrated by Server (or VM) Management
   System(s). Therefore it is possible for static ARP/ND entries to be
   downloaded to switches, routers or servers.

   Advantage: This methodology has been used to reduce ARP/ND
   fluctuations in large scale deployments.

   Disadvantage: There is no well defined mechanism for switches to get
   static ARP/ND entries, to get prompt update of static ARP/ND entries
   when changes occur, or to perform certain steps when switches go
   through reset.

   Recommendation: The IETF should create a well-defined mechanism (or
   protocols) for switches or servers to get static ARP/ND entries.

3.4. DNS based solution

   This solution is best suited to environments where applications
   resolve the address of things they need to connect to via DNS, and
   periodically refresh these addresses. While this solution is very
   well known, and extensively used, it is mainly appropriate for
   stateless services, or for services that have a large number of short




Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   lived connections. While elegant, it may not be appropriate for
   generic host migration.
   . When a VM is to be moved to a new location, here are the steps in
   getting the IP addresses:
       Instantiate the service on a VM in a distant rack. The new VM
        gets a new IP address
       Change the address of the service in DNS
       Wait for the DNS TTL to expire. While you are waiting, watch the
        number of connections to the new VM increase and the number of
        connections to the old VM decrease.
       Wait a little longer. When the number of connections to the old
        VM reaches zero, shut down the old VM.
   Advantage: DNS is existing technology and this is a well-known,
   commonly practiced technique.

   Disadvantage: This approach is not suitable for multi-tenant
   scenarios, or when the data center operators does not have full
   control of the applications.

   Recommendation: Limited use to where the data-center operators are in
   control of the entire application and runs the DNS. More appropriate
   for service migration than host / VM migration..

3.5. ARP/ND Proxy approaches

   RFC1027 specifies one ARP proxy approach. Since RFC1027, which was
   published in 1987, there have been many variants of ARP proxy being
   deployed. The term "ARP Proxy" is a loaded phrase, with different
   interpretations depending on vendors and / or environments.
   RFC1027's ARP Proxy is for a Gateway to return its own MAC address on
   behalf of the target host.  Another technique, also called "ARP
   Proxy" is for a ToR switch to snoop ARP requests and return the
   target hosts MAC if it knows it.  .

   Advantage: Proxy ARP [RFC1027] and its variants have allowed multi-
   subnet ARP traffic for over a decade.

   Disadvantage: Proxy ARP protocol [RFC1027] was developed prior to the
   concepts of VLANs and for hosts which don't support subnets, and does
   not provide the scaling.

   Recommendation: Revise RFC1027 with VLAN support and scalability for
   the Data Center Environment.


Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


3.6. Overlay models

   There are several drafts on using overlay networks to scale large
   layer 2 networks and enable mobility (e.g. draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-
   vmmobility-00, draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00). TRILL and
   IEEE802.1ah (Mac-in-Mac) are other types of overlay network to scale
   Layer 2.

   Overlay networks hide the hosts' addresses form the interior switches
   and routers. The Overlay Edge nodes which perform the network address
   encapsulation/decapsulation still see all remote hosts addresses
   which communicate with hosts attached locally.

   For a large data center with tens of thousands of applications
   communicating with peers outside the data center, all those
   applications' IP addresses are visible to external peers. When a
   great number of VMs move freely within a data center, all those VMs'
   IP addresses might not be aggregated very nicely on gateway routers,
   causing forwarding table size exploding.

   When the Gateway router receives a data frame from external peers
   destined to a target within the data center, routers need to resolve
   target's MAC address and the Overlay Edge node's address in order to
   perform the proper overlay encapsulation.

   Therefore, the overlay network will have a bottleneck at the Gateway
   router(s) in processing resolving target hosts' physical address (MAC
   or IP) and overlay edge address within the data center.

   Here are some approaches being used to minimize the problem:

      1. Use static mapping as described in Section 3.3.

      2. Have multiple gateway nodes (i.e. routers), with each handling
        a subset of hosts addresses which are visible to external peers,
        e.g. Gateway #1 handles a set of prefixes, Gateway #2 handles
        another subset of prefixes, etc. This architecture assumes that
        each gateway have enough downstream ports to be connected to all
        server racks.

        If each server rack is allowed to instantiate hosts/applications
        with any IP addresses, or allowing any VM to move anywhere
        without re-configuring IP/MAC addresses, each gateway has to
        resolve addresses which are potentially located on any server
        rack. The address resolution processing for each gateway can
        still be very heavy.



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011




4. Summary and Recommendations

    This memo describes some best practices which can alleviate impact
    of address resolution to L2/L3 gateway routers.

    In the Data Center, no single solution fits all deployments. This
    memo has summarized five different technologies and the advantages
    and disadvantages about all of these practices.

    In some of these scenarios, the best practices could be improved by
    creating and/or extending existing IETF protocols. These protocol
    change recommendations are:

        Extend IPv6 ND method,

        Create a "download" static ARP/ND entry protocol,

        Revise Proxy ARP [1027] for use in the data center.

5. Manageability Considerations

   This text gives recommendations for best practices in order to
   improve manageability of DC.

6. Security Considerations

   Security will be addressed in a separate document.

7. IANA Considerations

   None.

8. Acknowledgments

   We want to acknowledge the following people for their valuable inputs
   to this draft: K.K.Ramakrishnan.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

9. References

   [ARP]   D.C. Plummer, "An Ethernet address resolution protocol."
             RFC826, Nov 1982.

   [DC-ARCH] Karir,et al, "draft-karir-armd-datacenter-reference-arch"


Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   [ARMD-Problem] Narten, "draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement" in
             progress, Oct 2011.

   [Gratuitous ARP] S. Cheshire, "IPv4 Address Conflict Detection", RFC
             5227, July 2008.










Authors' Addresses

   Linda Dunbar
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 175
   Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Phone: (469) 277 5840
   Email: ldunbar@huawei.com

   Warren Kumari
   Google
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   US
   Email: warren@kumari.net

   Igor Gashinsky
   Yahoo
   45 West 18th Street 6th floor
   New York, NY 10011
   Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com



Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             ARMD ARP/ND BCP                 Nov 1, 2011


   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.

   Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
   Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
   the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
   permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
   users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
   repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
   address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

















Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires July 3, 2012                 [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/