From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Mar 1 05:31:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9619521E81F7 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:31:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XIfxNLHlW+5i for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:31:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D40821E8221 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:30:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e5.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:30:42 -0500 Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.224.85) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.105) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:30:39 -0500 Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40D06E805E for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q21DUcjs285056 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:30:38 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q21DUcLL012160 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:30:38 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-232-28.mts.ibm.com [9.65.232.28]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q21DUMKF010678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:30:28 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q21DTbkD023885; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:29:37 -0500 Message-Id: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" message dated "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:16:09 +0000." Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:29:36 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12030113-5930-0000-0000-000005B2F7CA Cc: "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:31:06 -0000 Hi. > According to previous discussion, one of the arguement is that we > don't need State Migration if there is no VM Migration, we can, for > example running active-active VMs mechanism to replace VM > Migration. I think this is a bit of a strawman. I would expect pretty much everyone on this list would agree that VM migration takes place, under a wide range of conditions. So let's just take it as a given that VM migration exists. Personally, I can see the theoretical benefit of state migration (e.g., of a firewall). But for me, the biggest reason I have been skeptical of this effort so far is that I don't see real operators stepping forwarding saying they need "state migration" in a real concrete sense. The IETF does much better when it has a real operational problem driving a solution. We need such a problem in order to privide a verification that should we attempt to develop a solution, the solution actually solves a real world problem. Thomas From melinda.shore@gmail.com Thu Mar 1 08:02:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF09721E805B for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2xF-1YQVZDT for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F9F21F8B67 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz17 with SMTP id wz17so1076768pbc.31 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.208.196 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.208.196; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.208.196 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=melinda.shore@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=melinda.shore@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.208.196]) by 10.68.208.196 with SMTP id mg4mr4354957pbc.108.1330617767100 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zWcqLwRC5rTg0zfEX5ayQfqxQCtoKyXIc7VpC0+zwDU=; b=gcuX/ofsAU6QnYdeZo4/w6R8iDzbCB/92SNFQ4FaXkC3VF6t4MJ1bgsBcKzN8v2EpJ dx/seNI+dHWBj31CYoPWiubIYHFbBu30QKERmYJMEIaz51oDuuIQKB4T8p72QPCpzImR 66p8B+ibPOVdWks+r3Akmug4TB8CaOIl7q1g0= Received: by 10.68.208.196 with SMTP id mg4mr3672609pbc.108.1330617767068; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f3sm2387241pbr.61.2012.03.01.08.02.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:02:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:02:43 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Yingjie Gu\(yingjie\)" , "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:02:47 -0000 On 3/1/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > I would expect pretty much everyone on this list would agree that VM > migration takes place, under a wide range of conditions. So let's just > take it as a given that VM migration exists. Actually, it wasn't that long ago that that question was contested. I was trying to get a handle on this last year and asked a few hypervisor vendors, and the answers I got ranged from "no" to "we're migrating VMs but they need to be quiesced before they can move" to "we're doing it in real-time but aren't close to releasing a product." So, if you're treating it as a given that's something of a shift right there. Clearly any use case needs to be rooted in actual use, but this is a fast-moving area and while something that was true yesterday is probably true today, something that was true six months ago could very well no longer be. Melinda From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Mar 1 08:16:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6498521F8850 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WszNOZCI+jd2 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D92621F87AD for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:16:35 -0500 Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.224.56) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.109) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:16:23 -0500 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9437038C827E for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q21GE8ma293230 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:14:08 -0500 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q21GEAix024233 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:14:10 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-232-28.mts.ibm.com [9.65.232.28]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q21GE8Sw024144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:14:09 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q21GDAob025552; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:13:11 -0500 Message-Id: <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Melinda Shore In-reply-to: <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Melinda Shore message dated "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:02:43 -0900." Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:13:10 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12030116-7182-0000-0000-000000F03AFA Cc: "Yingjie Gu\(yingjie\)" , "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:16:38 -0000 Hmm. Maybe I misunderstand. Live migration happens today. You start transferring the VM, but it continues running. At some point, you have to freeze the VM, finish transferring state (and any "dirty" pages) and enable the transferred VM at the new location and resume it. That does mean that an active VM in one place is migrated "live" (with a short downtime of sub seconds) to another place. This is not a case where the VM shuts down and new one is instantiated (i.e., started from scratch) elsewhere. Isn't this what VM migration means? Thomas From melinda.shore@gmail.com Thu Mar 1 08:24:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393C021E8229 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGrBEcefesSP for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA0D21E822D for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz17 with SMTP id wz17so1098707pbc.31 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.219.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.219.232; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.219.232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=melinda.shore@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=melinda.shore@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.219.232]) by 10.68.219.232 with SMTP id pr8mr4501049pbc.12.1330619085402 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EXQc1FAG3WJvJsTBKl8V4Xsp/+9B1IsRAIW04ktKTf8=; b=W0cuekhRK3QABic63ctErJ/INXpen8YpF7wN3SaoCT5K/OmcODEhCySlhsqVfbdePa VXu//PtgXOAJXY2akvq0NQbL3JcAaGR1CDEqL3hFmqu2pAipmWV/1o2TPUVJFNLQU0uE ZT23SkdjLpp6io77/72+jlGX3QGYA+XtSjHBU= Received: by 10.68.219.232 with SMTP id pr8mr3788997pbc.12.1330619085340; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8sm2442744pbe.42.2012.03.01.08.24.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:24:42 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Yingjie Gu\(yingjie\)" , "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:24:53 -0000 On 3/1/12 7:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > That does mean that an active VM in one place is migrated "live" (with > a short downtime of sub seconds) to another place. > This is not a case where the VM shuts down and new one is instantiated > (i.e., started from scratch) elsewhere. > Isn't this what VM migration means? I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer about that going forward. However, my understanding that while the VM image would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. It sounds to me like it's got much in common with old school supercomputer checkpoint/restart. For whatever it's worth we have to do something similar with some mid-range "application availability" (you'll notice the absence of the word "high") gizmos, and something along the lines of a middlebox state migration tool would seem to have some applicability there, too. Melinda From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Mar 1 08:33:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3FF21E8233 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uax6+noa9Zrd for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E6D21E8224 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:33:26 -0700 Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.139) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:32:44 -0700 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5245BC40122 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:41 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q21GUTxw127108 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:30 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q21GUchH016913 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:38 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-232-28.mts.ibm.com [9.65.232.28]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q21GUbNi016798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:38 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q21GTdoM025848; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:29:40 -0500 Message-Id: <201203011629.q21GTdoM025848@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Melinda Shore In-reply-to: <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Melinda Shore message dated "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:24:42 -0900." Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:29:39 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12030116-4242-0000-0000-000000EE0CBF Cc: "Yingjie Gu\(yingjie\)" , "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:33:29 -0000 Melinda Shore writes: > However, my understanding that while the VM image would be moved > (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, all that > crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. Well, such traffic is dropped or held until it can be delivered to the new location. > It sounds to me like it's got much in common with old school > supercomputer checkpoint/restart. Of course! How else could this be done? :-) In any case, it can be done today in the DC in under a second, which is good enough for a lot of use cases. Thomas From david.black@emc.com Thu Mar 1 09:02:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513C321F8855 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:02:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.722 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vOHlWOncViw for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:02:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BB821F8875 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI04.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.24]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q21H2a2s027657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:02:37 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:02:21 -0500 Received: from mxhub30.corp.emc.com (mxhub30.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.170]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q21H2Kbr015914; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:02:20 -0500 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.157]) by mxhub30.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.170]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:02:20 -0500 From: To: Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:02:18 -0500 Thread-Topic: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. Thread-Index: Acz3x+kNiL9BmUpjRKyFawblNZNp1wABImeA Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Cc: sami@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:02:44 -0000 > > That does mean that an active VM in one place is migrated "live" (with > > a short downtime of sub seconds) to another place. > > This is not a case where the VM shuts down and new one is instantiated > > (i.e., started from scratch) elsewhere. > > Isn't this what VM migration means? >=20 > I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer about > that going forward. However, my understanding that while the VM image > would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, > all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. =20 That understanding is incorrect - network activity is not quiesced. A gratuitous ARP or RARP is issued after the migration, and some inbound packets may get dropped because they are delivered only to the source location of the migration. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: sami-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sami-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of M= elinda Shore > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:25 AM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: Yingjie Gu(yingjie); sami@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? = Look forward to your > opinions. >=20 > On 3/1/12 7:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > That does mean that an active VM in one place is migrated "live" (with > > a short downtime of sub seconds) to another place. > > This is not a case where the VM shuts down and new one is instantiated > > (i.e., started from scratch) elsewhere. > > Isn't this what VM migration means? >=20 > I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer about > that going forward. However, my understanding that while the VM image > would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, > all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. It > sounds to me like it's got much in common with old school supercomputer > checkpoint/restart. For whatever it's worth we have to do something > similar with some mid-range "application availability" (you'll notice > the absence of the word "high") gizmos, and something along the lines of > a middlebox state migration tool would seem to have some applicability > there, too. >=20 > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > sami mailing list > sami@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Mar 1 09:28:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3274721E80A8 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PX4n-vHgteWr for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EEB21E80A5 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:28:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4CD20DB0; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:28:42 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFCcg56czxtE; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:28:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C02320DBE; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:28:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AEC421D9B045; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:28:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:28:41 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" Message-ID: <20120301172841.GB33202@elstar.local> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:28:48 -0000 On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 01:16:09AM +0000, Yingjie Gu(yingjie) wrote: > Besides, VM migration has been a widely acknowledged technology and solutions (e.g. VMotion), so I would say we can reasonably assume VM Migration will happen and hence states need to be migrated with VM. > > If we get a consensus that VM Migration is a reasonable assumption, I suggest we go to detail of what we can do in IETF to resolve State Migration and how. > But I look forward to your opinions. Lets assume VM migration happens today (which I am fine to assume - I am however unsure how frequent live migration takes place and hence whether its worth to optimize for it). That said, this assumption alone does not necessarily imply there is a state migration problem worth to be solved by the IETF. I am missing statements from VMware engineers (since you mention VMotion) or the like where they explain how IETF protocol work can help them to make their migration solutions work even better as they do. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Thu Mar 1 17:49:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75B921E8044 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:49:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.691 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.932, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9v5voqFD3WrE for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:49:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C185621E8024 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373CFE492; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:49:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288EDE493; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:49:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.1.4.171]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012030209490290-2623 ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:49:02 +0800 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:48:56 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Thomas Narten" , "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" References: , <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201203020948563939893@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-02 09:49:02, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-02 09:49:04, Serialize complete at 2012-03-02 09:49:04 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart425812438238_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18746.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.003-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--17.003-7.0-31-10;No--17.003-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:49:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart425812438238_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" VG90YWxseSBhZ3JlZS4gSSBkbyBzdWdnZXN0IHRvIGludm9sdmUgc29tZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBzZXJ2 aWNlIG9wZXJhdG9yLCBsaWtlIEdvb2dsZSwgYmFpZHUgKHdobyBtYXkgYmUgdGhlIHBvdGVudGlh bCBTQU1JIHVzZXJzKSBpbiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBpZiBwb3NzaWJsZSwgd2hpY2gnbGwgY29u dmluY2UgSUVURiB0aGF0IGl0J3MgYSByZWFsIHByb2JsZW0gd2UgZW5jb3VudGVyLg0KDQpCUg0K WXVuZmVpDQoNCg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IFRob21hcyBOYXJ0ZW4NCkRhdGU6 IDIwMTItMDMtMDEgMjE6MjkNClRvOiBZaW5namllIEd1KHlpbmdqaWUpDQpDQzogc2FtaUBpZXRm Lm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtzYW1pXSBGaXJzdCBTQU1JIGVtYWlsIGluIHRoZSBuZXcgeWVh ciwgY2FuIHdlIGdvIGZ1cnRoZXI/IExvb2sgZm9yd2FyZCB0byB5b3VyIG9waW5pb25zLg0KSGku DQoNCj4gQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHByZXZpb3VzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24sIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgYXJndWVt ZW50IGlzIHRoYXQgd2UNCj4gIGRvbid0IG5lZWQgU3RhdGUgTWlncmF0aW9uIGlmIHRoZXJlIGlz IG5vIFZNIE1pZ3JhdGlvbiwgd2UgY2FuLCBmb3INCj4gIGV4YW1wbGUgcnVubmluZyBhY3RpdmUt YWN0aXZlIFZNcyBtZWNoYW5pc20gdG8gcmVwbGFjZSBWTQ0KPiAgTWlncmF0aW9uLg0KDQpJIHRo aW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgYSBiaXQgb2YgYSBzdHJhd21hbi4NCg0KSSB3b3VsZCBleHBlY3QgcHJldHR5 IG11Y2ggZXZlcnlvbmUgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0IHdvdWxkIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgVk0NCm1pZ3JhdGlv biB0YWtlcyBwbGFjZSwgdW5kZXIgYSB3aWRlIHJhbmdlIG9mIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMuIFNvIGxldCdz IGp1c3QNCnRha2UgaXQgYXMgYSBnaXZlbiB0aGF0IFZNIG1pZ3JhdGlvbiBleGlzdHMuDQoNClBl cnNvbmFsbHksIEkgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGUgdGhlb3JldGljYWwgYmVuZWZpdCBvZiBzdGF0ZSBtaWdy YXRpb24NCihlLmcuLCBvZiBhIGZpcmV3YWxsKS4gQnV0IGZvciBtZSwgdGhlIGJpZ2dlc3QgcmVh c29uIEkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuDQpza2VwdGljYWwgb2YgdGhpcyBlZmZvcnQgc28gZmFyIGlzIHRoYXQg SSBkb24ndCBzZWUgcmVhbCBvcGVyYXRvcnMNCnN0ZXBwaW5nIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgc2F5aW5nIHRo ZXkgbmVlZCAic3RhdGUgbWlncmF0aW9uIiBpbiBhIHJlYWwNCmNvbmNyZXRlIHNlbnNlLg0KDQpU aGUgSUVURiBkb2VzIG11Y2ggYmV0dGVyIHdoZW4gaXQgaGFzIGEgcmVhbCBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBw cm9ibGVtDQpkcml2aW5nIGEgc29sdXRpb24uIFdlIG5lZWQgc3VjaCBhIHByb2JsZW0gaW4gb3Jk ZXIgdG8gcHJpdmlkZSBhDQp2ZXJpZmljYXRpb24gdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgd2UgYXR0ZW1wdCB0byBk ZXZlbG9wIGEgc29sdXRpb24sIHRoZQ0Kc29sdXRpb24gYWN0dWFsbHkgc29sdmVzIGEgcmVhbCB3 b3JsZCBwcm9ibGVtLg0KDQpUaG9tYXMNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCnNhbWkgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpzYW1pQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NhbWk= ------=_001_NextPart425812438238_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Totally agree. I do suggest to involve some Internet service operator= , like=20 Google, baidu (who may be the potential SAMI users) in the discu= ssion=20 if possible, which'll convince IETF that it's a real problem we encounter.=
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-03-01 21:29
CC: sami@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can= we go=20 further? Look forward to your opinions.
Hi.
 
> According to previous discussion, one&n= bsp;of the arguement is that we
>  don't need State Migration if&nbs= p;there is no VM Migration, we can, for=
>  example running active-active VMs = ;mechanism to replace VM
>  Migration.
 
I think this is a bit of a st= rawman.
 
I would expect pretty much everyone on&= nbsp;this list would agree that VM
migration takes place, under a wide ran= ge of conditions. So let's just
take it as a given that VM migrati= on exists.
 
Personally, I can see the theoretical b= enefit of state migration
(e.g., of a firewall). But for me, = ;the biggest reason I have been
skeptical of this effort so far is = ;that I don't see real operators
stepping forwarding saying they need "state&= nbsp;migration" in a real
concrete sense.
 
The IETF does much better when it = has a real operational problem
driving a solution. We need such a = ;problem in order to privide a
verification that should we attempt to = develop a solution, the
solution actually solves a real world p= roblem.
 
Thomas
 
_______________________________________________
sami mailing list
sami@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami
------=_001_NextPart425812438238_=------ From bschlies@cisco.com Thu Mar 1 18:30:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECBE21E80CA for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:30:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ImdZ7+iy6ioz for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDDB21E8012 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:30:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bschlies@cisco.com; l=1387; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330655448; x=1331865048; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IcgBP7oGRPcTJYW/KIPuFUxztpFrshgEPWmOH0ZEndw=; b=QW3VB4nMwFN4Ea1zzHnYHqspxbhVj/P80O1BeqQdkdWPI0SQok/VJVMI lrocKCg1w6oCzamclVFnu1ehVocTn0n9EyVi6TBtA4iLf2/5Wzmx5nDQ+ yyaQPU/RA+ggdyDwiEq2KvNDLG3OczNhSX4GcuFTL0yD5pmtUDFSZ0Q/k 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAO0vUE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABCtCKBB4F9AQEBAwESASdPC0ZXGSKHXwShDQGWdYwwDwENFgIIAgoBBgsCBgcPBgEKBgMChQIPCxQzGA+CP2MEiE+MbJMTgTs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,515,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="31487158" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2012 02:30:45 +0000 Received: from dhcp-171-71-146-239.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-146-239.cisco.com [171.71.146.239]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q222Ujrp009905 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 02:30:45 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Benson Schliesser In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:30:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> To: sami@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:30:50 -0000 On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:02 AM, = wrote: >> I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer = about >> that going forward. However, my understanding that while the VM = image >> would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, >> all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. =20 >=20 > That understanding is incorrect - network activity is not quiesced. A > gratuitous ARP or RARP is issued after the migration, and some inbound > packets may get dropped because they are delivered only to the source > location of the migration. Right. Minor packet loss is possible, but the VM migration is designed = so that e.g. established TCP connections don't fail. Like Thomas, I see that there is something to be done here. But I also = agree that we need to figure out the use-cases first, driven by real = operational requirements. It might help if we started talking about = use-cases for VM migration - yes it's possible, but why do people use = it? - so that we can figure out if any of them inform the discussion of = state migration. Further, are there any non-VM mobility use-cases for state migration? I = can imagine a few, but again I want to make sure they're being driven by = operational needs rather than mere possibility. Cheers, -Benson From zhangdacheng@huawei.com Thu Mar 1 18:32:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79B121E80D5 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:32:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.866 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7PnnHETFWBJK for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE1A21E8012 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M08007PYKDJD1@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:32:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M08001UYKCNBS@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:32:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHN68609; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:32:05 +0800 Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:31:30 +0800 Received: from SZXEML528-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.52]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:31:53 +0800 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:31:53 +0000 From: "Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" In-reply-to: <20120301172841.GB33202@elstar.local> X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.58] To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. Thread-index: Acz3SUkn2F6H2TiuReyy+E4fTWsLVgARGdSAACMoBnA= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AkQN Arg6 Eg71 EiiF E809 FncX Ha/g LqxY N257 OPbx PRW7 R3r9 T3mL T9Dl UYhB UqJ6; 2; agAuAHMAYwBoAG8AZQBuAHcAYQBlAGwAZABlAHIAQABqAGEAYwBvAGIAcwAtAHUAbgBpAHYAZQByAHMAaQB0AHkALgBkAGUAOwBzAGEAbQBpAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {C0C8A05D-1162-4923-8B39-CEBD665EAAD2}; egBoAGEAbgBnAGQAYQBjAGgAZQBuAGcAQABoAHUAYQB3AGUAaQAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:31:47 GMT; VHsNWToAIABbAHMAYQBtAGkAXQAgAEYAaQByAHMAdAAgAFMAQQBNAEkAIABlAG0AYQBpAGwAIABpAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgAG4AZQB3ACAAeQBlAGEAcgAsACAAYwBhAG4AIAB3AGUAIABnAG8AIABmAHUAcgB0AGgAZQByAD8AIABMAG8AbwBrACAAZgBvAHIAdwBhAHIAZAAgAHQAbwAgAHkAbwB1AHIAIABvAHAAaQBuAGkAbwBuAHMALgA= x-cr-puzzleid: {C0C8A05D-1162-4923-8B39-CEBD665EAAD2} X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <20120301172841.GB33202@elstar.local> Cc: "sami@ietf.org" Subject: [sami] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEZpcnN0IFNBTUkgZW1haWwgaW4gdGhlIG5l?= =?gb2312?b?dyB5ZWFyLCBjYW4gd2UgZ28gZnVydGhlcj8gTG9vayBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIHlv?= =?gb2312?b?dXIgb3BpbmlvbnMu?= X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:32:16 -0000 >> >> Lets assume VM migration happens today (which I am fine to assume - I >> am however unsure how frequent live migration takes place and hence >> whether its worth to optimize for it). [Dacheng Zhang] I think this will happen quite frequently in some conditions. Assume for energy conversation purpose at night an operator of a DC can move active VMs to several physical servers and switch other physical servers off. In this case, migration will happen very day. >> >> That said, this assumption alone does not necessarily imply there is a >> state migration problem worth to be solved by the IETF. I am missing >> statements from VMware engineers (since you mention VMotion) or the >> like where they explain how IETF protocol work can help them to make >> their migration solutions work even better as they do. [Dacheng Zhang] Agree. If we all agree that VM migration is happening or will happen in DC, it is the right time to discuss where there are any important scenarios where state migration across network side devices is necessary. By the way, there is a Cisco white paper " Virtual Machine Mobility with Vmware VMotion and Cisco Data Center Interconnect Technologies". I personally think it is quite interesting. Anybody having interests can download it and have a look. ^_^ Cheers Dacheng From zhangdacheng@huawei.com Thu Mar 1 18:41:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC2221F8A04 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:41:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68H7Ri-htxPf for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:41:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2D921F8A03 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:41:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M08001NSKP3NC@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:39:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0800436KOYPJ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:39:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHN69201; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:39:03 +0800 Received: from SZXEML428-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.36) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:38:51 +0800 Received: from SZXEML528-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.52]) by szxeml428-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.36]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:38:58 +0800 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:38:58 +0000 From: "Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.58] To: Benson Schliesser , "sami@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. Thread-index: AQHM+ByBW9BnaudsDU6Syq1ZqtckXZZWSUKQ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Subject: [sami] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEZpcnN0IFNBTUkgZW1haWwgaW4gdGhlIG5l?= =?gb2312?b?dyB5ZWFyLAljYW4gd2UgZ28gZnVydGhlcj8gTG9vayBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIHlv?= =?gb2312?b?dXIgb3BpbmlvbnMu?= X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:41:42 -0000 >> Right. Minor packet loss is possible, but the VM migration is designed so that >> e.g. established TCP connections don't fail. >> [Dacheng Zhang] I just checked with somebody working in this area, you are correct. So, +1 >> >> Further, are there any non-VM mobility use-cases for state migration? I can >> imagine a few, but again I want to make sure they're being driven by >> operational needs rather than mere possibility. [Dacheng Zhang] In addition, even after we have found some useful use case, we still need to find out whether there are some other ways instead of state migration that we can go . >> >> Cheers, >> -Benson >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sami mailing list >> sami@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami From david.black@emc.com Thu Mar 1 18:54:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0755221E804F for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:54:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.864, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WAQeNp8sYn7B for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2414421E8040 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:54:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q222rwjV020098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:54:01 -0500 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:53:47 -0500 Received: from mxhub29.corp.emc.com (mxhub29.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.169]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q222rlif000588; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:53:47 -0500 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.157]) by mxhub29.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.169]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:53:47 -0500 From: To: , Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:53:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. Thread-Index: Acz4HIisjG3bx5WrRwWEXVf6cXmYLAAAoENg Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CE51@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-puzzleid: {34BA25B2-D040-47BF-A5AB-6388D2356043} x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Bauf Bxmm Dg35 Ektq GzGC HoNb IxSq LcKA Lzif O5AR RKXI U8ao Vf5G Vf/Q YK9S Yzxr; 2; YgBzAGMAaABsAGkAZQBzAEAAYwBpAHMAYwBvAC4AYwBvAG0AOwBzAGEAbQBpAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {34BA25B2-D040-47BF-A5AB-6388D2356043}; ZABhAHYAaQBkAC4AYgBsAGEAYwBrAEAAZQBtAGMALgBjAG8AbQA=; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:53:41 GMT; UgBFADoAIABbAHMAYQBtAGkAXQAgAEYAaQByAHMAdAAgAFMAQQBNAEkAIABlAG0AYQBpAGwAIABpAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgAG4AZQB3ACAAeQBlAGEAcgAsAAkAYwBhAG4AIAB3AGUAIABnAG8AIABmAHUAcgB0AGgAZQByAD8AIABMAG8AbwBrACAAZgBvAHIAdwBhAHIAZAAgAHQAbwAgAHkAbwB1AHIAIABvAHAAaQBuAGkAbwBuAHMALgA= acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:54:05 -0000 > Like Thomas, I see that there is something to be done here. But I also ag= ree that we need > to figure out the use-cases first, driven by real operational requirement= s. It might help > if we started talking about use-cases for VM migration - yes it's possibl= e, but why do > people use it? - so that we can figure out if any of them inform the disc= ussion of state migration. Here are four use cases to start with (all are non-disruptive with VM migra= tion): (1) Server load balancing - migrate VMs for balanced server loading. (2) Power savings - Consolidate VMs onto fewer servers when overall data ce= nter load is light (perhaps at night) so that unused servers can be powered down. (3) Non-disruptive server maintenance - vacate a server that needs to be po= wered down so that it can be worked on. (4) Non-disruptive server hardware refresh - add new servers and remove old= servers. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: sami-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sami-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= enson Schliesser > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:31 PM > To: sami@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? = Look forward to your > opinions. >=20 >=20 > On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:02 AM, w= rote: >=20 > >> I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer abo= ut > >> that going forward. However, my understanding that while the VM image > >> would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables, > >> all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first. > > > > That understanding is incorrect - network activity is not quiesced. A > > gratuitous ARP or RARP is issued after the migration, and some inbound > > packets may get dropped because they are delivered only to the source > > location of the migration. >=20 > Right. Minor packet loss is possible, but the VM migration is designed so= that e.g. established TCP > connections don't fail. >=20 > Like Thomas, I see that there is something to be done here. But I also ag= ree that we need to figure > out the use-cases first, driven by real operational requirements. It migh= t help if we started talking > about use-cases for VM migration - yes it's possible, but why do people u= se it? - so that we can > figure out if any of them inform the discussion of state migration. >=20 > Further, are there any non-VM mobility use-cases for state migration? I c= an imagine a few, but again I > want to make sure they're being driven by operational needs rather than m= ere possibility. >=20 > Cheers, > -Benson >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sami mailing list > sami@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami From melinda.shore@gmail.com Thu Mar 1 20:10:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F0B21E8067 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gGnafOT2Bf7e for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7843B21E8032 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz17 with SMTP id wz17so1723104pbc.31 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.196.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.196.161; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.196.161 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=melinda.shore@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=melinda.shore@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.196.161]) by 10.68.196.161 with SMTP id in1mr10893054pbc.78.1330661432389 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ldjybeQWNcqMCs744QxxCl1qkEBLiWgvfeQI7stuXEo=; b=hJkuQWkSf2EeppE+Y4eHClUAWygxk5z5oO4Jx+QiiFqnndwgnPj66cHFcKwcOoAtyB ia33kzRfaHsyN3D85vG0ERyPaR+4/Xvj9wK+eAMMusKPBOaHNYH91YfWkl1M0xM2N25N 9QHhrMNmdZo5zuldSjvUcAVIsbxwYp8k8xRiLTFcZIXEQb8yU8/AcnPfIHkySR1T5zEh E97OyauAS83o7DrK2yBcxRKhoID6DY3Kvn5xgdwcUtjlszCMor/h43Lsz/LA6zKBOVCc sVqogaBoyb7dM/CHUqMQ3Z2izjsl3RCbzZUwcwj6eyH0IFy3ZhTqnQ9168l/1Uir/LXE vmuA== Received: by 10.68.196.161 with SMTP id in1mr9002611pbc.78.1330661432351; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8sm3847989pbr.53.2012.03.01.20.10.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:10:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F504835.2080500@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:10:29 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: david.black@emc.com References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CCDE@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CE51@MX14A.corp.emc.com> In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05AEC8CE51@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sami@ietf.org, bschlies@cisco.com Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:10:33 -0000 On 3/1/12 5:53 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote: > Here are four use cases to start with (all are non-disruptive with VM migration): > > (1) Server load balancing - migrate VMs for balanced server loading. > (2) Power savings - Consolidate VMs onto fewer servers when overall data center load > is light (perhaps at night) so that unused servers can be powered down. > (3) Non-disruptive server maintenance - vacate a server that needs to be powered > down so that it can be worked on. > (4) Non-disruptive server hardware refresh - add new servers and remove old servers. Here's one that closely related to (3): there are load balancers that work basically by presenting a NATted address and playing with the NAT tables on the fly. At the moment I find this case a little unclear but I'm in the process of trying to get some feedback on it from people who've got such a product. This problem has also come up in the case of multihomed sctp endpoings. I think there are some use cases not related to VM migration. Melinda From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Mar 1 23:28:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A9B21E80D2 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:28:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.937 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8x2=0.246, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tDLoZFg0HHLW for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFC121E80AB for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B65920CFE; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:50 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTf9BR7LjZjW; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A072620CFD; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:49 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 992641D9E052; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:49 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" Message-ID: <20120302072849.GA34203@elstar.local> References: <20120301172841.GB33202@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "Yingjie Gu\(yingjie\)" , "sami@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sami] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgRmlyc3QgU0FNSSBlbWFpbCBpbiB0aGUgbmV3?= =?utf-8?q?_year=2C_can_we_go_further=3F_Look_forward_to_your_opinions=2E?= X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:28:52 -0000 On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:31:53AM +0000, Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng) wrote: > >> > >> Lets assume VM migration happens today (which I am fine to assume - I > >> am however unsure how frequent live migration takes place and hence > >> whether its worth to optimize for it). > [Dacheng Zhang] I think this will happen quite frequently in some conditions. Assume for energy conversation purpose at night an operator of a DC can move active VMs to several physical servers and switch other physical servers off. In this case, migration will happen very day. Sure - but this still does not convince me there is a problem worth solving. As long as there is a common layer two infrastructure, migration seems to work today. If there is not a common layer two infrastructure, you still need to have a common shared storage system. I know, you will now draw a picture that VM will migrate across DCs etc. We have discussed all these potential use cases. I am lacking evidence that they (a) are real and (b) significant enough to be worth solving. To me, this still all sounds more like a research group topic. > >> That said, this assumption alone does not necessarily imply there is a > >> state migration problem worth to be solved by the IETF. I am missing > >> statements from VMware engineers (since you mention VMotion) or the > >> like where they explain how IETF protocol work can help them to make > >> their migration solutions work even better as they do. > [Dacheng Zhang] > Agree. If we all agree that VM migration is happening or will happen in DC, it is the right time to discuss where there are any important scenarios where state migration across network side devices is necessary. > > By the way, there is a Cisco white paper " Virtual Machine Mobility with Vmware VMotion and Cisco Data Center Interconnect Technologies". I personally think it is quite interesting. Anybody having interests can download it and have a look. ^_^ > If I understand the paper correctly, then they assume an extended VLAN with a common IP subnet is in place for cross DC migration to work and they the leave migration across IP network boundaries as something to be worked out in the future. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From guyingjie@huawei.com Sun Mar 4 23:27:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D3321F8618 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 23:27:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.725, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id civCQHb8saR8 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 23:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB5C21F8615 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 23:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0E00K96HZ3KB@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0E00JSUHZ3F4@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sami@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHF75611; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:51 +0800 Received: from SZXEML432-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.60) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:34 +0800 Received: from SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.9]) by SZXEML432-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:48 +0800 Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:25:47 +0000 From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" In-reply-to: <201203020948563939893@chinamobile.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.175] To: zhangyunfei , Thomas Narten Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_d2iORR7ona2op95np58EBA)" Content-language: zh-CN Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions. Thread-index: AQHM+BbZhIKE9hjGr0OnbrrRiE6HzZZbUjkw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201203020948563939893@chinamobile.com> Cc: "sami@ietf.org" Subject: [sami] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUmU6ICBGaXJzdCBTQU1JIGVtYWlsIGluIHRo?= =?gb2312?b?ZSBuZXcgeWVhciwgY2FuIHdlIGdvIGZ1cnRoZXI/IExvb2sgZm9yd2FyZCB0?= =?gb2312?b?byB5b3VyIG9waW5pb25zLg==?= X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: State Migration List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:27:50 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_d2iORR7ona2op95np58EBA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 WWVzLCBJIGFncmVlLCBhbmQgSSBhbSBjb25uZWN0aW5nIHdpdGggc29tZSBJU1BzIHRvIGdldCB0 aGVpciBvcGluaW9ucy4NClRoZXkgbWF5IG5vdCBiZSBzbyBhY3RpdmUgaW4gZW1haWwgZGlzY3Vz c2lvbiwgYnV0IHRoZXkgY2FuIHByb3ZpZGUgc29tZSB1c2UgY2FzZXMgdG8gY29tcG9zZSBhIGRy YWZ0Lg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KQmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzDQpH dSBZaW5namllDQoNCreivP7Iyzogemhhbmd5dW5mZWkgW21haWx0bzp6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaUBjaGlu YW1vYmlsZS5jb21dDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxMsTqM9TCMsjVIMDWwNY5OjQ5DQrK1bz+yMs6IFRo b21hcyBOYXJ0ZW47IFlpbmdqaWUgR3UoeWluZ2ppZSkNCrOty806IHNhbWlAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3 zOI6IFJlOiBSZTogW3NhbWldIEZpcnN0IFNBTUkgZW1haWwgaW4gdGhlIG5ldyB5ZWFyLCBjYW4g d2UgZ28gZnVydGhlcj8gTG9vayBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIHlvdXIgb3BpbmlvbnMuDQoNClRvdGFsbHkg YWdyZWUuIEkgZG8gc3VnZ2VzdCB0byBpbnZvbHZlIHNvbWUgSW50ZXJuZXQgc2VydmljZSBvcGVy YXRvciwgbGlrZSBHb29nbGUsIGJhaWR1ICh3aG8gbWF5IGJlIHRoZSBwb3RlbnRpYWwgU0FNSSB1 c2VycykgaW4gdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gaWYgcG9zc2libGUsIHdoaWNoJ2xsIGNvbnZpbmNlIElF VEYgdGhhdCBpdCdzIGEgcmVhbCBwcm9ibGVtIHdlIGVuY291bnRlci4NCg0KQlINCll1bmZlaQ0K DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0Kemhhbmd5dW5mZWkNCg0KRnJvbTog VGhvbWFzIE5hcnRlbjxtYWlsdG86bmFydGVuQHVzLmlibS5jb20+DQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTAzLTAx IDIxOjI5DQpUbzogWWluZ2ppZSBHdSh5aW5namllKTxtYWlsdG86Z3V5aW5namllQGh1YXdlaS5j b20+DQpDQzogc2FtaUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86c2FtaUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJl OiBbc2FtaV0gRmlyc3QgU0FNSSBlbWFpbCBpbiB0aGUgbmV3IHllYXIsIGNhbiB3ZSBnbyBmdXJ0 aGVyPyBMb29rIGZvcndhcmQgdG8geW91ciBvcGluaW9ucy4NCkhpLg0KDQo+IEFjY29yZGluZyB0 byBwcmV2aW91cyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGFyZ3VlbWVudCBpcyB0aGF0IHdlDQo+ ICBkb24ndCBuZWVkIFN0YXRlIE1pZ3JhdGlvbiBpZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBWTSBNaWdyYXRpb24s IHdlIGNhbiwgZm9yDQo+ICBleGFtcGxlIHJ1bm5pbmcgYWN0aXZlLWFjdGl2ZSBWTXMgbWVjaGFu aXNtIHRvIHJlcGxhY2UgVk0NCj4gIE1pZ3JhdGlvbi4NCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGlzIGlzIGEgYml0 IG9mIGEgc3RyYXdtYW4uDQoNCkkgd291bGQgZXhwZWN0IHByZXR0eSBtdWNoIGV2ZXJ5b25lIG9u IHRoaXMgbGlzdCB3b3VsZCBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IFZNDQptaWdyYXRpb24gdGFrZXMgcGxhY2UsIHVu ZGVyIGEgd2lkZSByYW5nZSBvZiBjb25kaXRpb25zLiBTbyBsZXQncyBqdXN0DQp0YWtlIGl0IGFz IGEgZ2l2ZW4gdGhhdCBWTSBtaWdyYXRpb24gZXhpc3RzLg0KDQpQZXJzb25hbGx5LCBJIGNhbiBz ZWUgdGhlIHRoZW9yZXRpY2FsIGJlbmVmaXQgb2Ygc3RhdGUgbWlncmF0aW9uDQooZS5nLiwgb2Yg YSBmaXJld2FsbCkuIEJ1dCBmb3IgbWUsIHRoZSBiaWdnZXN0IHJlYXNvbiBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbg0K c2tlcHRpY2FsIG9mIHRoaXMgZWZmb3J0IHNvIGZhciBpcyB0aGF0IEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIHJlYWwg b3BlcmF0b3JzDQpzdGVwcGluZyBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHNheWluZyB0aGV5IG5lZWQgInN0YXRlIG1p Z3JhdGlvbiIgaW4gYSByZWFsDQpjb25jcmV0ZSBzZW5zZS4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgZG9lcyBtdWNo IGJldHRlciB3aGVuIGl0IGhhcyBhIHJlYWwgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgcHJvYmxlbQ0KZHJpdmluZyBh IHNvbHV0aW9uLiBXZSBuZWVkIHN1Y2ggYSBwcm9ibGVtIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIHByaXZpZGUgYQ0K dmVyaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRoYXQgc2hvdWxkIHdlIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBhIHNvbHV0aW9u LCB0aGUNCnNvbHV0aW9uIGFjdHVhbGx5IHNvbHZlcyBhIHJlYWwgd29ybGQgcHJvYmxlbS4NCg0K VGhvbWFzDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQpzYW1pIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0Kc2FtaUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcv bWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zYW1pDQo= --Boundary_(ID_d2iORR7ona2op95np58EBA) Content-type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, I agree, and I am connectin= g with some ISPs to get their opinions.

They may not be so active in ema= il discussion, but they can provide some use cases to compose a draft.

 

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB:<= /span> zhangyunfei [mai= lto:zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C22=C8=D5 =C0=D6=C0=D69:49
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Thomas Narten; Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
=B3=AD=CB=CD: sami@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look = forward to your opinions.

 

Totally agree. I do suggest= to involve some Internet service operator, like Google, baidu (who may be = the potential SAMI users) in the discussion if possible, which'll convince IETF tha= t it's a real problem we encounter.

 

BR

Yunfei

 

zhangyunfei

 

From: Thomas Narten

Date: 2012-03-01&= nbsp;21:29

CC:=  sami@ietf.org

Subject: Re: [sam= i] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions.

Hi.

 

> According to=  previous discussion, one of the arguement&nb= sp;is that we

>  don't = need State Migration if there is no VM&n= bsp;Migration, we can, for

>  example&nbs= p;running active-active VMs mechanism to replace&n= bsp;VM

>  Migration.<= o:p>

 

I think this = ;is a bit of a strawman.

 

I would expect&nb= sp;pretty much everyone on this list would&nb= sp;agree that VM

migration takes p= lace, under a wide range of conditions. = So let's just

take it as a=  given that VM migration exists.=

 

Personally, I can=  see the theoretical benefit of state mi= gration

(e.g., of a = firewall). But for me, the biggest reason&nbs= p;I have been

skeptical of this=  effort so far is that I don't see&= nbsp;real operators

stepping forwarding&nb= sp;saying they need "state migration" in=  a real

concrete sense.

 

The IETF does&nbs= p;much better when it has a real operati= onal problem

driving a solutio= n. We need such a problem in order = to privide a

verification that = ;should we attempt to develop a solution,&nbs= p;the

solution actually = ;solves a real world problem.

 

Thomas

 

___________________________= ____________________

sami mailing list=

sami@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/sami

--Boundary_(ID_d2iORR7ona2op95np58EBA)--