[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 rfc7342               Informational
ARMD                                                       L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                                Huawei
Intended status: Informational                             W. Kumari
Expires: February 2013                                        Google
                                                      Igor Gashinsky
                                                      August 31, 2012

          Practices for scaling ARP and ND for Large Data Centers


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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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.

                     Expires February 31, 2013               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC


   This draft documents some simple practices that scale ARP/ND in data
   center environments.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Terminology ................................................. 3
   3. Common DC network Designs.................................... 4
   4. Layer 3 to Access Switches................................... 4
   5. Layer 2 practices to scale ARP/ND............................ 5
      5.1. Practices to alleviate APR/ND burden on L2/L3 boundary
      routers ..................................................... 5
         5.1.1. Station communicating with an external pe.......... 5
         5.1.2. L2/L3 boundary router processing of inbound traffic.. 6
         5.1.3. Inter subnets communications .........................6
      5.2. Static ARP/ND entries on switches ....................... 7
      5.3. ARP/ND Proxy approaches ................................. 7
   6. Practices to scale ARP/ND in Overlay models .................. 8
   7. Summary and Recommendations .................................. 8
   8. Security Considerations ...................................... 9
   9. IANA Considerations ......................................... 9
   10. Acknowledgements ........................................... 9
   11. References ................................................. 9
      11.1. Normative References................................... 9
      11.2. Informative References................................. 9
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 10

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

1. Introduction

   As described in [ARMD-Problems], the increasing trend of rapid
   workload shifting and server virtualization in modern data centers
   requires servers to be loaded (or re-loaded) with different VMs or
   applications at different times. Different VMs residing on one
   physical server may have different IP addresses, or may even be in
   different IP subnets.

   In order to allow a physical server to be loaded with VMs in
   different subnets, or VMs to be moved to different server racks
   without IP address re-configuration, the corresponding networks need
   to enable multiple broadcast domains (many VLANs) on the interfaces
   of L2/L3 boundary routers and ToR switches. Unfortunately, when the
   combined number of VMs (or hosts) in all those subnets is large,
   this can lead to address resolution scaling issues, especially on
   the L2/L3 boundary routers.

   This draft documents some simple practices which can scale ARP/ND in
   data center environment.

2. Terminology

   This document reuses much of terminology from [ARMD-Problem]. Many
   of the definitions are presented here to aid the reader.

   ARP:    IPv4 Address Resolution Protocol [RFC826]

   Aggregation Switch: A Layer 2 switch interconnecting ToR switches

   Bridge:  IEEE802.1Q compliant device. In this draft, Bridge is used
             interchangeably with Layer 2 switch.

   DC:      Data Center

   DA:     Destination Address

   End Station:  VM or physical server, whose address is either a
             destination or the source of a data frame.

   EOR:    End of Row switches in data center.

   NA:     IPv6's Neighbor Advertisement

   ND:     IPv6's Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   NS:     IPv6's Neighbor Solicitation

   SA:     Source Address

   Station: A node which is either a destination or source of a data

   ToR:    Top of Rack Switch (also known as access switch).

   UNA:    IPv6's Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement

   VM:     Virtual Machines

3. Common DC network Designs

   Some common network designs for data center include:

     1) layer-3 connectivity to the access switch,

     2) Large Layer 2,

     3) Overlay models

   There is no single network design that fits all cases.  Following
   sections document some of the common practices to scale Address
   Resolution under each network design.

4. Layer 3 to Access Switches

   This refers to the network design with Layer 3 to the access

   As described in [ARMD-Problem], many data centers are architected so
   that ARP/ND broadcast/multicast messages are confined to a few ports
   (interfaces) of the access switches (i.e. ToR switches).

   Another variant of the Layer 3 solution is Layer 3 all the way to
   servers (or even to the VMs), which confines the ARP/ND
   broadcast/multicast messages to the small number of VMs within the

   Advantage: Both ARP and ND scale well. There are no address
   resolution issue in this design.

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   Disadvantage: The main disadvantage to this network design is that
   IP addresses have to be re-configured on switches when a server
   needs to be re-loaded with an application in different subnet or
   when VMs need to be moved to a different location.

   Summary: This solution is more suitable to data centers which have
   static workload and/or network operators who can re-configure IP
   addresses/subnets on switches before any workload change.  No
   protocol changes are suggested.

5. Layer 2 practices to scale ARP/ND.

   5.1. Practices to alleviate APR/ND burden on L2/L3 boundary routers

   The ARP/ND broadcast/multicast messages in a Layer 2 domain can
   negatively affect the L2/L3 boundary routers, especially with large
   number of VMs and subnets. This section describes some commonly used
   practices in reducing the ARP/ND processing required on L2/L3
   boundary routers.

   5.1.1. Station communicating with an external peer:

   When the external peer is in a different subnet, the originating end
   station needs to send ARP/ND requests to its default gateway router
   to resolve the router's MAC address. If there are many subnets on
   the gateway router and a large number of end stations in those
   subnets, the gateway router has to process a very large number of
   ARP/ND requests. This is often CPU intensive as ARP/ND are usually
   processed by the CPU (and not in hardware).

   Solution: For IPv4 networks, a practice to alleviate this problem is
   to have the L2/L3 boundary router send periodic gratuitous ARP
   messages, so that all the connected end stations can refresh their
   ARP caches. As the result, most (if not all) end stations will not
   need to ARP for the gateway routers when they need to communicate
   with external peers.

   However, due to IPv6 requiring bi-directional path validation Ipv6
   end stations are still required to send unicast ND messages to their
   default gateway router (even with those routers periodically sending
   Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements).

   Advantage: Reduction of ARP requests to be processed by L2/L3
   boundary router for IPv4.

   Disadvantage: No reduction of ND processing on L2/L3 boundary router
   for IPv6 traffic.

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   Recommendation: Use for IPv4-only networks, or make change to the ND protocol to
   allow data frames to be sent without requiring bi-directional frame validation.
   Some work in progress in this area is [Impatient-NUD]

   5.1.2.  L2/L3 boundary router processing of inbound traffic:

   When a L2/L3 boundary router receives a data frame and the
   destination is not in router's ARP/ND cache, some routers hold the
   packet and trigger an ARP/ND request to resolve the L2 address. The
   router may need to send multiple ARP/ND requests until either a
   timeout is reached or an ARP/ND reply is received before forwarding
   the data packets towards the target's MAC address. This process is
   not only CPU intensive but also buffer intensive.

   Solution: For IPv4 network, a common practice to alleviate this
   problem is for the router to snoop ARP messages, so that its ARP
   cache can be refreshed with active addresses in the L2 domain. As a
   result, there is an increased likelihood of the router's ARP cache
   having the IP-MAC entry when it receives data frames from external

   For IPv6 end stations, routers are supposed to send ND unicast even
   if it has snooped UNA/NS/NA from those stations. Therefore, this
   practice doesn't help IPv6 very much.

   Advantage: Reduction of the number of ARP requests which routers
   have to send upon receiving IPv4 packets and the number of IPv4 data
   frames from external peers which routers have to hold.

   Disadvantage: The amount of ND processing on routers for IPv6
   traffic is not reduced. Even for IPv4, routers still need to hold
   data packets from external peers and trigger ARP requests if the
   targets of the data packets either don't exist or are not very

   Recommendation: Do not use with IPv6 or make protocol changes to
   IPv6's ND. For IPv4, if there is higher chance of routers receiving
   data packets towards non-existing or inactive targets, alternative
   approaches should be considered.

   5.1.3. Inter subnets communications

   The router will be hit twice when the originating and destination
   stations are in different subnets under on the same router. Once for

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   the originating station in subnet-A initiating ARP/ND request to the
   L2/L3 boundary router (5.1.1 above); and the second for the L2/L3
   boundary router to initiate ARP/ND requests to the target in subnet-
   B (5.1.2 above).

   Again, practices described in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 can alleviate problems
   in IPv4 network, but don't help very much for IPv6.

   Advantage: reduction of ARP processing on L2/L3 boundary routers for
   IPv4 traffic.

   For IPv6 traffic, there is no reduction of ND processing on L2/L3
   boundary routers.

   Recommendation: do not use with IPv6 or consider other approaches.

   5.2. Static ARP/ND entries on switches

   In a datacenter environment the placement of L2 and L3 addressing
   may be orchestrated by Server (or VM) Management System(s).
   Therefore it may be possible for static ARP/ND entries to be
   configured on routers and / or servers.

   Advantage: This methodology has been used to reduce ARP/ND
   fluctuations in large scale data center networks.

   Disadvantage: There is no well-defined mechanism for devices to get
   prompt incremental updates of static ARP/ND entries when changes

   Recommendation: The IETF should consider creating standard mechanism
   (or protocols) for switches or servers to get incremental static
   ARP/ND entries updates.

   5.3. ARP/ND Proxy approaches

   RFC1027 specifies one ARP proxy approach. Since the publication of
   RFC1027 in 1987 there have been many variants of ARP proxy being
   deployed. The term "ARP Proxy" is a loaded phrase, with different
   interpretations depending on vendors and/or environments.  RFC1027's
   ARP Proxy is for a Gateway to return its own MAC address on behalf
   of the target station.  Another technique, also called "ARP Proxy"
   is for a ToR switch to snoop ARP requests and return the target
   station's MAC if the ToR has the information.

   Advantage: Proxy ARP [RFC1027] and its variants have allowed multi-
   subnet ARP traffic for over a decade.

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   Disadvantage: Proxy ARP protocol [RFC1027] was developed for hosts
   which don't support subnets.

   Recommendation: Revise RFC1027 with VLAN support and make it scale
   for Data Center Environment.

6. Practices to scale ARP/ND in Overlay models

   There are several drafts on using overlay networks to scale large
   layer 2 networks (or avoid the need for large L2 networks) and
   enable mobility (e.g. draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00, draft-
   mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00). TRILL and IEEE802.1ah (Mac-in-Mac)
   are other types of overlay network to scale Layer 2.

   Overlay networks hide the VMs' addresses from the interior switches
   and routers, thereby stopping the router from having to perform
   ARP/ND services for as many addresses. The Overlay Edge nodes which
   perform the network address encapsulation/decapsulation still see
   all remote stations addresses which communicate with stations
   attached locally.

   For a large data center with many applications, these applications'
   IP addresses need to be reachable by external peers. Therefore, the
   overlay network may have a bottleneck at the Gateway devices(s) in
   processing resolving target stations' physical address (MAC or IP)
   and overlay edge address within the data center.

   Here are some approaches being used to minimize the problem:

      1. Use static mapping as described in Section 5.2.

      2. Have multiple gateway nodes (i.e. routers), with each handling
        a subset of stations addresses which are visible to external
        peers, e.g. Gateway #1 handles a set of prefixes, Gateway #2
        handles another subset of prefixes, etc.

7. Summary and Recommendations

    This memo describes some common practices which can alleviate the
    impact of address resolution to L2/L3 gateway routers.

    In Data Centers, no single solution fits all deployments. This memo
    has summarized some practices in various scenarios and the
    advantages and disadvantages about all of these practices.

    In some of these scenarios, the common practices could be improved
    by creating and/or extending existing IETF protocols. These protocol
    change recommendations are:

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

        - Extend IPv6 ND method,

        - Create a incremental "download" schemes for static ARP/ND

        - Revise Proxy ARP [1027] for use in the data center.

8. Security Considerations

   This draft documents existing solutions and proposes additional work
   that could be initiated to extend various IETF protocols to better
   scale ARP/ND for the data center environment. As such we do not
   believe that this introduces any security concerns.

9. IANA Considerations

   This document does not request any action from IANA.

10. Acknowledgements

   We want to acknowledge the following people for their valuable
   inputs to this draft: T. Sridhar, Ron Bonica, Kireeti Kompella, and

11. References

   11.1. Normative References

   [ARMD-Problem] Narten, "draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement" in
             progress, Oct 2011.

   [Gratuitous ARP] S. Cheshire, "IPv4 Address Conflict Detection",
             RFC 5227, July 2008.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997

   [ARP]   D.C. Plummer, "An Ethernet address resolution protocol."
             RFC826, Nov 1982.

   11.2. Informative References

   [DC-ARCH] Karir,et al, "draft-karir-armd-datacenter-reference-arch"

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013           [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Pratices to scale ARP/ND in large DC

   [Impatient-NUD] E. Nordmark, I. Gashinsky, "draft-ietf-6man-

Authors' Addresses

   Linda Dunbar
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 175
   Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Phone: (469) 277 5840
   Email: ldunbar@huawei.com

   Warren Kumari
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   Email: warren@kumari.net

   Igor Gashinsky
   45 West 18th Street 6th floor
   New York, NY 10011
   Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com

Dunbar-Kumari-Gashinsky    Expires February 31, 2013          [Page 10]