Thanks for this, it’s very informative. I do hope that’s the case. Of course it 
does sound like more complexity, which is another thing :/

Here’s the source of the rumor:

https://youtu.be/-1bWYvbUbLI?t=16m

This talk is one of the best sources I’ve found for comparing different 
solutions, and well worth a watch.

Definitely interested to hear others’ experience.





From: "Van Leeuwen, Robert" <rovanleeu...@ebay.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:09 PM
To: Christian MacNevin <christian.macne...@247-inc.com>, 
"users@lists.opencontrail.org" <users@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [Users] Baremetal support requires vxlan?

>The documentation seems to suggest that the TOR Services Node requires VXLAN 
>encapsulation in order
> to support baremetal hosts. Am I reading that right? We’re looking at 
> contrail now, and the best information seems
> to suggest that VXLAN encapsulation halves the effective line rate of your 
> hosts, so I’d prefer to go with MPLS/GRE.

I have no actual experience with integrating baremetal except for a POC setup 
some time ago, however:
AFAIK
* You configure contrail in what order encapsulation should be done.
That means it will switch between the lowest common denominator.
So any traffic going to bare-metal will indeed be vxlan based. However, traffic 
between vrouters will still be MPLS over GRE/UDP
Depending on how many bare-metal hosts you think you will integrate it might 
not affect too much traffic.
* I do not think the VXLAN protocol impact is as significant as you mentioned.
BUM traffic will be handled less elegant but I am not aware of it impacting raw 
traffic speeds to such a high degree.
If that is the case I would certainly like to know more about why that would 
happen.

Cheers,
Robert van Leeuwen
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/users_lists.opencontrail.org

Reply via email to