Multicast in the Data Center Overview
draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-07
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (mboned WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-07-23
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
MBONED M. McBride
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Informational O. Komolafe
Expires: January 24, 2020 Arista Networks
July 23, 2019
Multicast in the Data Center Overview
draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-07
Abstract
The volume and importance of one-to-many traffic patterns in data
centers is likely to increase significantly in the future. Reasons
for this increase are discussed and then attention is paid to the
manner in which this traffic pattern may be judiously handled in data
centers. The intuitive solution of deploying conventional IP
multicast within data centers is explored and evaluated. Thereafter,
a number of emerging innovative approaches are described before a
number of recommendations are made.
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 https://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 January 24, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
McBride & Komolafe Expires January 24, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast in the Data Center July 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Reasons for increasing one-to-many traffic patterns . . . . . 3
2.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Handling one-to-many traffic using conventional multicast . . 7
3.1. Layer 3 multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Layer 2 multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Example use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Advantages and disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Alternative options for handling one-to-many traffic . . . . 10
4.1. Minimizing traffic volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Head end replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Programmable Forwarding Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The volume and importance of one-to-many traffic patterns in data
centers is likely to increase significantly in the future. Reasons
for this increase include the nature of the traffic generated by
applications hosted in the data center, the need to handle broadcast,
unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic within the overlay
technologies used to support multi-tenancy at scale, and the use of
certain protocols that traditionally require one-to-many control
Show full document text