Multicast in the Data Center Overview
draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-09

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05
• 06
• 07
• 08
• 09

MBONED                                                        M. McBride
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                               O. Komolafe
Expires: August 7, 2020                                  Arista Networks
                                                        February 4, 2020

                 Multicast in the Data Center Overview
                     draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-09

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 judiciously 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 August 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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 August 7, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center         February 2020

   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 will likely continue to increase.  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 message exchanges.