<div dir="ltr">You misunderstood. I was not talking about a new routing protocol. I was only talking about employing an existing routing protocol like BGP or OSPF.<div><br></div><div>Carl</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:06 AM, jcsf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcsf31459@gmail.com" target="_blank">jcsf31459@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Carl,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">A new routing protocol is certainly of great interest. Are you working with IETF or can you share more here?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">WRT:Nova Schedule - There still are requirements for the Schedule to taking into consideration network as a resource. My focus is to figure out how to add network capabilities to the Scheduler’s algorithm while still maintaining clean separation of concerns between Nova and Neutron. We wouldn’t want to get back into the nova-network situation. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">John<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="1464c2aceaeb4aeb__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Carl Baldwin [mailto:<a href="mailto:carl@ecbaldwin.net" target="_blank">carl@ecbaldwin.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 30, 2014 12:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> A, Keshava<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:jcsf31459@gmail.com" target="_blank">jcsf31459@gmail.com</a>; Armando M.; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Kyle Mestery</span></p>
<div><div class="h5"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][L3] VM Scheduling v/s Network as input any consideration ?<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Keshava,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">How much of a problem is routing prefix fragmentation for you? Fragmentation causes routing table bloat and may reduce the performance of the routing table. It also increases the amount of information traded by the routing protocol. Which aspect(s) is (are) affecting you? Can you quantify this effect?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">A major motivation for my interest in employing a dynamic routing protocol within a datacenter is to enable IP mobility so that I don't need to worry about doing things like scheduling instances based on their IP addresses. Also, I believe that it can make floating ips more "floaty" so that they can cross network boundaries without having to statically configure routers.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">To get this mobility, it seems inevitable to accept the fragmentation in the routing prefixes. This level of fragmentation would be contained to a well-defined scope, like within a datacenter. Is it your opinion that trading off fragmentation for mobility a bad trade-off? Maybe it depends on the capabilities of the TOR switches and routers that you have. Maybe others can chime in here.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Carl<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:11 PM, A, Keshava <<a href="mailto:keshava.a@hp.com" target="_blank">keshava.a@hp.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Hi,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Motivation behind this requirement is “ to achieve VM prefix aggregation using routing protocol ( BGP/OSPF)”.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">So that prefix advertised from cloud to upstream will be aggregated.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#1f497d">I do not have idea how the current scheduler is implemented. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">But schedule to maintain some kind of the ‘Network to Node mapping to VM” ..</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Based on that mapping to if any new VM getting hosted to give prefix in those Nodes based one input preference.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">It will be great help us from routing side if this is available in the infrastructure.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I am available for review/technical discussion/meeting. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Thanks & regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Keshava.A</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jcsf31459@gmail.com" target="_blank">jcsf31459@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:jcsf31459@gmail.com" target="_blank">jcsf31459@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>; Carl Baldwin; Kyle Mestery; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][L3] VM Scheduling v/s Network as input any consideration ?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Hi keshava,</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">
<span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">This is an area that I am interested in. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on a blueprint. This would require enhancements to the scheduler as you suggested. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">There are a number of uses cases for this. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">John. </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1f497d">Sent from my smartphone.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><table border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;background:white;border-spacing:0px">
<tbody><tr><td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;font-size:initial;text-align:initial"><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">A, Keshava</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Sent: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:58 AM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Carl Baldwin; Kyle Mestery; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Reply To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Subject: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">[openstack-dev] [neutron][L3] VM Scheduling v/s Network as input any consideration ?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have one of the basic question about the Nova Scheduler in the following below scenario.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whenever a new VM to be hosted is there any consideration of network attributes ? <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Example let us say all the VMs with 10.1.x is under TOR-1, and 20.1.xy are under TOR-2.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">A new CN nodes is inserted under TOR-2 and at same time a new tenant VM needs to be hosted for 10.1.xa network.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Then is it possible to mandate the new VM(10.1.xa) to hosted under TOR-1 instead of it got scheduled under TOR-2 ( where there CN-23 is completely free from resource perspective ) ? <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is required to achieve prefix/route aggregation and to avoid network broadcast (incase if they are scattered across different TOR/Switch) ? <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="628" height="727" src="cid:image001.png@01CF7BF7.408350C0"><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks & regards,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Keshava.A<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>