On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Richard Bin liu <[email protected]> wrote: > To realize seamless migration in wide range is one of our goals, but > currently VM migration tools is likely to require: the distance between two > places cannot be more than 50KM (or a larger value, but not too much). We > know that disaster recovery point should be as far as possible from the > local.
Hello, Richard, I am new to these technologies and discussion, but we are working out how to implement VXLAN and including the concern you mention above. I think it is not specifically relevant to VXLAN and friends. Our plan deals with Internet->VM traffic through VTEPs located at the multiple datacenters, all of which may be aware of Internet->VXLAN mappings by way of the provisioning system plus ARP/MAC learning/snooping. VM->Internet traffic flows natively (after passing through a filter in the hypervisor's VTEP) and is not affected by triangular routing, because we will manipulate ARP and NDP traffic to trick the guest OS into doing what we want -- sending its traffic to a VRRP gateway that is present "everywhere." It will not tunnel back to a hub VTEP or require state information in the native layer-3 network used to carry the Internet-bound traffic. VM<>VM traffic within a customer's private L2 or L3 domain will certainly have high latency if the two VMs are located far apart, but this is a limitation of physics, not VXLAN. I would welcome an internet-draft accelerating the speed of photons through glass if you can demonstrate a way to implement it. -- Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
