Datacenter Solution Approaches
draft-dalela-dc-approaches-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ashish Dalela | ||
| Last updated | 2012-07-02 (Latest revision 2011-12-30) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
There are many approaches to addressing virtualized datacenter scaling problems. Examples of these approaches include, L2 vs. L3 forwarding, host-based vs. network-based solutions, fat-access and lean-core vs. fat-core and lean-access, flat addressing vs. encapsulation, protocol learning vs. directories for location discovery, APIs vs. protocols for orchestration, etc. Different solutions being proposed today take one or more of these approaches in combination, although sometimes the question of approach itself may not be settled. Given the multiple facets of the datacenter problem, and many approaches to solve each problem, it becomes hard to discuss a solution when some approaches may be acceptable while others are not. This document discusses the pros and cons of various approaches. The goal is not to describe a specific solution, but to evaluate the various approaches. This document concludes with a set of recommendations on which approaches are most optimal for a holistic solution to the entire problem set.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)