Internet DRAFT - draft-ghanwani-nvo3-mcast-issues
draft-ghanwani-nvo3-mcast-issues
INTERNET-DRAFT A. Ghanwani
Intended Status: Informational Dell
Expires: August 12, 2014 L. Dunbar
Huawei
V. Bannai
Paypal
R. Krishnan
Brocade
February 13, 2014
Multicast Issues in Networks Using NVO3
draft-ghanwani-nvo3-mcast-issues-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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
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
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
to this document.
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
Abstract
This memo discusses issues with supporting multicast traffic in a
network that uses Network Virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3
(NVO3). It describes the various mechanisms that may be used for
multicast and discusses some of the considerations with supporting
multicast applications in networks that use NVO3.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Multicast mechanisms in networks that use NVO3 . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 No multicast support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Replication at the source NVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Replication at a multicast service node . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 IP multicast in the underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Other schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Simultaneous use of more than one mechanism . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IP multicast applications in the overlay . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
1. Introduction
Network virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3 (NVO3) is a
technology that is used to address issues that arise in building
large, multitenant data centers that make extensive use of server
virtualization [PS].
This document is focused specifically on the problem of supporting
multicast in networks that use NVO3. Because of the requirement of
multi-destination delivery, multicast traffic poses some unique
challenges.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology as defined
in the NVO3 Framework document [FW].
2. Multicast mechanisms in networks that use NVO3
In NVO3 environments, traffic between NVEs is transported using a
tunnel encapsulation such as VXLAN [VXLAN], NVGRE [NVGRE], STT [STT],
etc.
Besides the need to support the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) and
Neighbor Discovery (ND), there are several applications that require
the support of multicast and/or broadcast in data centers [DC-MC].
With NVO3, there are many possible ways that multicast may be handled
in such networks. We discuss some of the attributes of the following
four methods, but other methods are also possible.
1. No multicast support.
2. Replication at the source NVE.
3. Replication at a multicast service node.
4. IP multicast in the underlay.
These mechanisms are briefly mentioned in the NVO3 Framework [FW]
document. This document attempts to fill in some more details about
the basic mechanisms underlying each of these mechanisms and
discusses the issues and tradeoffs of each.
2.1 No multicast support
In this scenario, there is no support whatsoever for multicast
traffic when using the overlay. This can only work if the following
conditions are met:
1. All of the traffic is unicast. In other words, there are no
multicast applications in the network and the only multicast
traffic is due to ARP/ND and due to flooding of frames with an
unknown MAC destination address.
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
2. A network virtualization authority (NVA) is used at the NVE
to determine the MAC address-to-NVE mapping and to determine
the MAC address-to-IP address bindings. In other words,
there is no data plane learning, and address resolution
requests via ARP/ND that are issued by the VMs must be
resolved by the NVE that they are attached to.
With this approach, certain multicast/broadcast applications such as
DHCP can be supported by use of a helper function in the NVE.
The main issues that need to be addressed with this mechanism are the
handling of hosts for which a mapping does not already exist in the
NVA. This issue can be particularly challenging if such end systems
are reachable through more than one NVE.
2.2 Replication at the source NVE
With this method, the overlay attempts to provide a multicast service
without requiring any specific support from the underlay, other than
that of a unicast service. A multicast or broadcast transmission is
achieved by replicating the packet at the source NVE, and making
copies, one for each destination NVE that the multicast packet must
be sent to.
For this mechanism to work, the source NVE must know, a priori, the
IP addresses of all destination NVEs that need to receive the packet.
For example, in the case of an ARP broadcast or an ND multicast, the
source NVE must know the IP addresses of all the remote NVEs where
there are members of the tenant subnet in question.
The obvious drawback with this method is that we have multiple copies
of the same packet that will traverse any common links that are along
the path to each of the destination NVEs. If, for example, a tenant
subnet is spread across 50 NVEs, the packet would have to be
replicated 50 times at the source NVE. This also creates an issue
with the forwarding performance of the NVE, especially if it is
implemented in software.
Note that this method is similar to what was used in VPLS [VPLS]
prior to extensive support of MPLS multicast [MPLS-MC].
2.3 Replication at a multicast service node
With this method, all multicast packets would be sent using a unicast
tunnel encapsulation to a multicast service node. The multicast
service node, in turn, would create multiple copies of the packet and
would deliver a copy, using a unicast tunnel encapsulation, to each
of the NVEs that are part of the multicast group for which the packet
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
is intended.
This mechanism is similar to that used by the ATM Forum's LAN
Emulation [LANE] specification [LANE].
Unlike the method described in Section 2.2, there is no performance
impact at the ingress NVE, nor are there any issues with multiple
copies of the same packet from the source NVE to the multicast
service node. However there remain issues with multiple copies of
the same packet on links that are common to the paths from the
multicast service node to each of the egress NVEs. Additional issues
that are introduced with this method include the availability of the
multicast service node, methods to scale the services offered by the
multicast service node, and the sub-optimality of the delivery paths.
Finally, the IP address of the source NVE must be preserved in packet
copies created at the multicast service node if data plane learning
is in use. This could create problems if IP source address reverse
path forwarding (RPF) checks are in use.
2.4 IP multicast in the underlay
In this method, the underlay supports IP multicast and the ingress
NVE encapsulates the packet with the appropriate IP multicast address
in the tunnel encapsulation header for delivery to the desired set of
NVEs. The protocol in the underlay could be any variant of Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM). The NVE would be required to
participate in the underlay as a host using IGMP/MLD in order for the
underlay to learn about the groups that the NVE participates in.
With this method, there are none of the issues with the methods
described in Sections 2.2.
With PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), the number of flows required would be
(n*g), where n is the number of source NVEs that source packets for
the group, and g is the number of groups. Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR-
PIM) would offer better scalability with the number of flows required
being g.
In the absence of any additional mechanism, e.g. using an NVA for
address resolution, for optimal delivery, there would have to be a
separate group for each tenant, plus a separate group for each
multicast address (used for multicast applications) within a tenant.
Additional considerations are that only the lower 23 bits of the IP
address (regardless of whether IPv4 or IPv6 is in use) are mapped to
the outer MAC address, and if there is equipment that prunes
multicasts at Layer 2, there will be some aliasing. Finally, a
mechanism to efficiently provision such addresses for each group
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
would be required.
There are additional optimizations which are possible, but they come
with their own restrictions. For example, a set of tenants may be
restricted to some subset of NVEs and they could all share the same
outer IP multicast group address. This however introduces a problem
of sub-optimal delivery (even if a particular tenant within the group
of tenants doesn't have a presence on one of the NVEs which another
one does, the former's multicast packets would still be delivered to
that NVE). It also introduces an additional network management
burden to optimize which tenants should be part of the same tenant
group (based on the NVEs they share), which somewhat dilutes the
value proposition of NVO3 which is to completely decouple the overlay
and physical network design allowing complete freedom of placement of
VMs anywhere within the data center.
2.5 Other schemes
There are still other mechanisms that may be used that attempt to
combine some of the advantages of the above methods by offering
multiple replication points, each with a limited degree of
replication [EDGE-REP]. Such schemes offer a trade-off between the
amount of replication at an intermediate node (router) versus
performing all of the replication at the source NVE or all of the
replication at a multicast service node.
3. Simultaneous use of more than one mechanism
While the mechanisms discussed in the previous section have been
discussed individually, it is possible for implementations to rely on
more than one of these. For example, the method of Section 2.1 could
be used for minimizing ARP/ND, while at the same time, multicast
applications may be supported by one, or a combination of, the other
methods. For small multicast groups, the methods of source NVE
replication or the use of a multicast service node may be attractive,
while for larger multicast groups, the use of multicast in the
underlay may be preferable.
4. IP multicast applications in the overlay
When IP multicast is implemented in the overlay (i.e. the tenant
traffic is IP multicast), there are a few issues that need to be
addressed.
First, in all cases where L2 virtual network interfaces (VNIs) are
present, the NVE would need to support IGMP/MLD snooping in order to
prevent delivery of packets to tenant systems that are not interested
in receiving them.
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
Second is the issue of how the groups are setup and mapped to tunnels
in the underlay. This can be accomplished entirely by an NVA if the
mechanisms described in Section 2.2 or Section 2.3 are used, with the
NVE just participating in snooping of IGMP messages from the tenant
systems. If the method of Section 2.4 is used, then a mechanism must
be provide for mapping the tenant IP multicast address to an IP
multicast address for use in the underlay, and the NVE would be
required to translate the information from the snooped IGMP/MLD
messages from the tenant systems into corresponding requests for the
underlay.
Third, when using the scheme described in Section 2.3, it may be
useful to have the multicast service node support the IGMP querier
function.
Fourth, if the IP multicast traffic is contained within a single
virtual network (VN), then the schemes described herein are
sufficient. If, on the other hand, the IP multicast traffic needs to
traverse VNs, then the routing mechanisms at the NVE need to offer IP
multicast forwarding. Once again, depending on how the groups are
setup -- whether by an NVA or some other entity -- the forwarding
tables at the NVE that has L3 virtual network interfaces (VNIs) would
need to be setup by that entity.
5. Summary
This document has identified various mechanisms for supporting
multicast in networks that use NVO3. It highlights the basics of
each mechanism and some of the issues with them. As solutions are
developed, the protocols would need to consider the use of these
mechanisms and co-existence may be a consideration. It also
highlights some of the requirements for supporting multicast
applications in an NVO3 network.
6. Security Considerations
This is an informational document, and as such, does not introduce
any new security considerations beyond what may be present in
proposed solutions.
7. IANA Considerations
This draft does not have any IANA considerations.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
[PS] Lasserre, M. et al., "Framework for DC network
virtualization", work in progress, January 2014.
[FW] Narten, T. et al., "Problem statement: Overlays
for network virtualization", work in progress,
July 2013.
8.2 Informative References
[VXLAN] Mahalingam, M. et al., "VXLAN: A framework for
overlaying virtualized Layer 2 networks over Layer 3
networks," work in progress.
[NVGRE] Sridharan, M. et al., "NVGRE: Network virtualization
using Generic Routing Encapsulation," work in progress.
[STT] Davie, B. and Gross J., "A stateless transport
tunneling protocol for network virtualization,"
work in progress.
[DC-MC] McBride M., and Lui, H., "Multicast in the data
center overview," work in progress.
[VPLS] Lasserre, M., and Kompella, V. (Eds), "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) using Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) signaling," RFC 4762, January 2007.
[MPLS-MC] Aggarwal, R. et al., "Multicast in VPLS," work in
progress.
[LANE] "LAN emulation over ATM," The ATM Forum,
af-lane-0021.000, January 1995.
[EDGE-REP]
Marques P. et al., "Edge multicast replication for
BGP IP VPNs," work in progress, June 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Anoop Ghanwani
Dell
Email: anoop@alumni.duke.edu
Linda Dunbar
Huawei
Email: ldunbar@huawei.com
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Multicast Issues in NVO3 February 13, 2014
Vinay Bannai
Paypal
Email: vbannai@paypal.com
Ram Krishnan
Brocade
Email: ramk@brocade.com
Ghanwani Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 10]
