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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 07 08 RFC 7342

ARMD                                                          L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                                   Huawei
Category: Informational                                       W. Kumari
                                                                 Google
                                                          I. Gashingsky
                                                                  Yahoo

Expires: Nov 2012                                          July 11, 2012


            Practices for scaling arp-nd for Large Data Centers

               draft-dunbar-armd-arp-nd-scaling-practices-01




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 November 30, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky Expires November 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   (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.



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 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Terminology ................................................. 3
   3. Potential Solutions to Scale Address Resolution in DC......... 4
      3.1. Layer 3 to Access Switches .............................. 4
      3.2. Practices to scale ARP/ND in layer 2 .................... 5
         3.2.1. When a station needs to communicate with an external
         peer: .................................................... 5
         3.2.2. L2/L3 boundary router processing of inbound traffic: 6
         3.2.3. Inter subnets communications ....................... 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. Acknowledgements ........................................... 10
   9. References ................................................. 11
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 11








Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012


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 VMs
   or applications at different times. Those different VMs 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 VMs 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 VMs (or
   hosts) in all those subnets is large.
   This draft is intended to document some simple well established
   practices which can scale ARP/ND in 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

   End Station:  VM or physical server, whose address is either a
             destination or the source of a data frame.

   EOR:    End of Row switches in data center.

   NA:     IPv6's Neighbor Advertisement

   ND:     IPv6's Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]

   NS:     IPv6's Neighbor Solicitation



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   SA:     Source Address

   Station: node which is either a destination or source of a data
             frame.

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

   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
   to scale ARP/ND:

     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 common practices for each type of solution.

   3.1. Layer 3 to Access Switches

   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 VMs within the
   server, or none at all.




Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   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.

   Summary: 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. Practices to scale ARP/ND in layer 2

   L2/L3 boundary routers can be heavily impacted by the ARP/ND
   broadcast/multicast messages in a Layer 2 domain, especially with
   large number of VMs and subnets. This section describes some
   commonly used practices in reducing the ARP/ND processing required
   on L2/L3 boundary  routers.

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

   When the external peer is in a different subnet, the originating end
   station 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 end stations in all
   those subnets, the gateway router has to process a very large number
   of ARP/ND requests. This is often CPU intensive as such
   requests/responses are processed by the CPU and not in hardware.

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

   However, IPv6 end stations 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.





Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   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.

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



   3.2.2. L2/L3 boundary router processing of inbound traffic:

   When L2/L3 boundary router receives a data frame from L3 domain, if
   the destination 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 before forwarding 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 snooping ARP messages, so
   that its ARP cache can be refreshed with active addresses 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 peers.

   For IPv6 end stations, routers are supposed to send ND unicast even
   if it has snooped UNA/NS/NA from those stations. 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 number of IPv4 data frames from
   external peers 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 peers and trigger ARP requests if the
   targets of the data packets either don't exist or are not very
   active.



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

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

   3.2.3. Inter subnets communications

   The router will be hit twice when the originating and destination
   stations are in different subnets under the router. Once for the
   originating station in subnet-A initiating ARP/ND request to the
   L2/L3 boundary router (3.2.1 above); and the second for the L2/L3
   boundary router 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.

   But 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 data center networks.

   Disadvantage: There is no well defined mechanism for switches to get
   prompt incremental 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 destinations they need to communicate to via
   DNS, and periodically refresh these addresses. While this solution is


Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   very well known, and extensively used, it is mainly appropriate for
   stateless services, or for services that have a large number of short
   lived connections. While simple, this technique may not be
   appropriate for generic VM migration.
   If a VM can get new IP address when it is 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 where each tenant needs to use its own address space, or
   when the data center operators does not have full control of
   addresses used by stations/VMs.

   Summary: 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 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 station.  Another technique, also called
   "ARP Proxy" is for a ToR switch to snoop ARP requests and return the
   target station's MAC if the ToR has the information.

   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.




Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   Recommendation: Revise RFC1027 with VLAN support and make it scale
   for Data Center Environment.

   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 VMs' addresses from the interior switches
   and routers. The Overlay Edge nodes which perform the network
   address encapsulation/decapsulation still see all remote stations
   addresses which communicate with stations 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 stations' 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 stations 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  VMs/applications with
   any IP addresses, or allowing any VM to move anywhere without re-
   configuring IP/MAC addresses, each gateway has to resolve addresses




Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

   which are potentially located on any server rack. The address
   resolution processing for each gateway can still be very heavy.

4. Summary and Recommendations

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

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

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

        Extend IPv6 ND method,

        Create a incremental "download" schemes for static ARP/ND
         entries,

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



5. Manageability Considerations

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



6. Security Considerations

   Security will be addressed in a separate document.



7. IANA Considerations

   This document does not request any action from IANA.

8. Acknowledgements

   We want to acknowledge the following people for their valuable
   inputs to this draft: T. Sridhar, Ron Bonica, Kireeti Kompella, and
   K.K.Ramakrishnan.



Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          ARMD ARP/ND Practices                 June 2012

9. References

9.1 Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

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

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

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

   9.2 Informative References

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

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










Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky                              Expires December 2012                [Page 11]


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