Right, a given PE only receives information for those VPNs of which it is a member. This is a basic scaling concept common to all L2/L3 VPN technologies.
Yours irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Luyuan Fang (lufang) > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:10 PM > To: Lucy yong; Shah, Himanshu; Thomas Narten; Kireeti Kompella > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Push or pull? > > > in push model, BGP peer group or ORF may be used to avoid every NVE > to > > have all endpoint routes; > > In BGP VPN case, it is most efficient to use RT Constraint [RFC 6484] > for selective route distribution - only send the VPN routes to the peer > who has the relevant VPNs. > Luyuan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Lucy yong > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:03 PM > > To: Shah, Himanshu; Thomas Narten; Kireeti Kompella > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Push or pull? > > > > I agree with Thomas. Both "push" and "pull" models have their > > application space. To add on two points, in push model, BGP peer > group > > or ORF may be used to avoid every NVE to have all endpoint routes; in > > the pull model, an NVE will have temporary caching to reduce the > > number of queries. > > > > Lucy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Shah, Himanshu > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:46 PM > > To: Thomas Narten; Kireeti Kompella > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Push or pull? > > > > I kind of agree with Thomas. > > > > Cisco gave LISP (pull based) presentation which is a working model, > > during NVO3 interim. > > I believe there are several ways to skin a cat and we should not > limit > > our options. > > Besides, I also got an impression from the chairs that discussing > > preference of one solution over other is rather premature based on > > where the NVO3 is. > > > > Regards, > > himanshu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Thomas Narten > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:04 PM > > To: Kireeti Kompella > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Push or pull? > > > > Hi Kireeti. > > > > Kireeti Kompella <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > I'm glad you brought this up. Actually, this conversation has > > > happened several times, to my knowledge, without a firm > conclusion. > > I > > > doubt we can close it, but at least, let's air it. > > > > > Push: send route updates to everyone (first see Aldrin's comment > > about > > > RT Constraint) as soon as you (the AUTHORITY/ORACLE) get them. > > > > > Pull: sit on updates you get until someone asks for them. > > > > > I could try to convince you what a terrible idea Pull is. I could > > > refer to the Internet, which is all Push, and scales reasonably > well. > > > > You mean like DNS or ARP? > > > > I do not think we should say "push is good, pull is bad". That is > just > > too categorical a statement. > > > > > I could ask you what happens to packets while the Pull is being > > > responded to, or a bunch of related questions. I won't. > > > > They get queued. Or dropped. Or possibly something else. Yes, there > > are implications to that. But not necessarily a show stopper either. > > > > > > In my view, this puts an unnecessary load on NVEs. > > > > > Let's talk instead about the "unnecessary load". Can someone > > > quantify this? Is it CPU? memory? messaging? What's the bottleneck > > > or pain point? > > > > Some or all of the above. > > > > If typical VNs are smallish, I agree that an NVE can preload full > > tables with no problem. But what about for very large VNs? Should the > > architecture *force* such preloading of full tables, even if the > > working set of routes is actually very small? > > > > And what about for very large VNs where there is a lot of VM > mobility? > > Should all NVEs be required to get update info even for destinations > > they don't care about? > > > > > Here's my back-of-the-envelop calculation for memory, normalized to > > > a VM. Let's say a VM has 10,000 friends in the DC that it might > > possibly > > > want to talk to, but only one that it really wants to talk to. > Let's > > > say that a FIB route entry takes 100 bytes. That adds up to a > > possible > > > total of 1MB vs. an actual of 100 bytes. Is 1MB really something > one > > > should optimize, especially considering that the VM has probably > > > been allocated 4GB? > > > > Are you really arguing that the difference between 1MB and 100 bytes > > is just noise? And who says this is in conventional memory on a > > host? > > I could see this being done in the ASIC... > > > > > Maybe there is a dimension to this that really is an issue. I would > > > love to know, especially with numbers backing it up. But let's > first > > > convince ourselves that this is a problem worth solving before > > > spending cycles solving it. > > > > I do not think we should today require that the NVO3 architecture (in > > a MUST sense) support only push. I think we should allow for either > > push or pull, or some combination. I can see benefits with both > approaches. > > > > Note also that we may be looking at the problem from different > > perspectives. For example, in a single data center, I can imagine a > > centralized directory service holding the complete address mapping > > information for all the VNs in the DC. An NVE in such cases can query > > such a mapping system with very very low latency. > > > > Thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
