datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Network Performance Isolation in Data Centres using Congestion Policing
draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre-02

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Document stream: No stream defined
Last updated: 2014-02-14
Intended RFC status: Unknown
Other versions: plain text, xml, pdf, html

Stream State:No stream defined
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

ConEx                                                         B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft                                                        BT
Intended status: Informational                              M. Sridharan
Expires: August 18, 2014                                       Microsoft
                                                       February 14, 2014

Network Performance Isolation in Data Centres using Congestion Policing
                   draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre-02

Abstract

   This document describes how a multi-tenant (or multi-department) data
   centre operator can isolate tenants from network performance
   degradation due to each other's usage, but without losing the
   multiplexing benefits of a LAN-style network where anyone can use any
   amount of any resource.  Zero per-tenant configuration and no
   implementation change is required on network equipment.  Instead the
   solution is implemented with a simple change to the hypervisor (or
   container) beneath the tenant's virtual machines on every physical
   server connected to the network.  These collectively enforce a very
   simple distributed contract - a single network allowance that each
   tenant can allocate among their virtual machines, even if distributed
   around the network.  The solution uses layer-3 switches that support
   explicit congestion notification (ECN).  It is best if the sending
   operating system supports congestion exposure (ConEx).  Nonetheless,
   the operator can unilaterally deploy a complete solution while
   operating systems are being incrementally upgraded to support ConEx
   and ECN.

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 August 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Briscoe & Sridharan      Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Data Centre Network Performance Isolation  February 2014

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Features of the Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Outline Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Performance Isolation: Intuition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Performance Isolation: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Why Congestion Policing Works  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Trustworthy Congestion Signals at Ingress  . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.1.  Tunnel Feedback vs. ConEx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.1.2.  ECN Recommended  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.1.3.  Summary: Trustworthy Congestion Signals at Ingress . . 15
     5.2.  Switch/Router Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.3.  Congestion Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.4.  Distributed Token Buckets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.1.  Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.2.  Evolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Related Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9.  IANA Considerations (to be removed by RFC Editor)  . . . . . . 21
   10. Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

[include full document text]