1. ARMD – Next Steps Next Steps

2. Why a WG There is a problem People want to work to solve the problem Scope of problem is defined Work items are defined Schedule is defined Charter on the web http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart Scan for ARMD

3. ARMD Problem statement Large Data Center and Multi-Site Data Centers have Server virtualization introduces massive amount of hosts in a data center Next Gen or Cloud Data Center have to handle massive amount of subnets (or Closed User Groups) The topology of subnet changes as virtual machines migrate from one location to another Traditional VLAN partitions no longer solve problem

4. ARP issues 100s Virtual hosts on physical Servers – Sending ARPs – On many VLANs and subnets Data Centers in single or multiple sites – Multiple sites connected by any type of network technology (L2VPN, L3VPN, 802.1aq Ethernet, TRILL Ethernet) using any type of encapsulation – VM allocation and movement managed centrally or distributed

5. Problems and Questions Issues – Massive #s of hosts – Massive # of client subnets – VM moving Questions – Can we count on the Gratuitous ARP? In VMs? – How do we minimize flooding of ARP? – What changes need to occur to ARP or Proxy ARP? – Should we focus on v4 or v6 or both? – Can we use the simple solution? – Is there a common ARP for Ethernet (802.1aq, Trill, L2VPN, L3VPN)?

6. ARP Extensions Extensions to existing Protocols No requirement any behavior changes on hosts, applications, or Virtual Machines being deployed in the market. – Note: Some solutions suggest Do not break DHCP, or any other broadcast/multicast mechanism used by applications. Extensions to ARP and IPv6 ND if possible Retain Common ARP / ND concept Common protocol across all multiple environments Adaption in specific protocols (L2VPN, L3VPN, 802.1aq, Trill) Will be family of protocols At Least ARP

7. ARMD – Work Parallel Work Plan Clarify problem Problem statement for ARP, NDS Security impact Survey Existing Work Survey existing solutions GAP analysis Security analysis Protocol design Architecture Protocols Management

8. Clarifying Problem Problem statement – Discussion earlier – Stated in Charter Questions: – Is this a real problem? – Does the charter statement summarize problem? – Is Security necessary? Who is willing to help refine problem statements?

9. Analysis for ARMD (1) Look for GAPs within Data Center – IPv4 ARP – IPv6 ND or autoconfiguration Survey existing Work – Survey NHRP (RFC2332) & SCSP (RFC 2334) and application to Ethernet – TRILL work as potential solution – Other existing work from Research (MOOSE), or deployments Consider proposals – Should consider variety of solutions, including directory based, proxy based, or cache based solutions. – Network or host based

10. Analysis for ARMD (2) Analyze Security – Include analysis of security concerns of IPv4 ARP requests from malicious users. Evaluating potential security solutions and conclude if the security threat can justify solutions. – Analysis Security for ND ARMD assumes the direct links to individual hosts and virtual machines are IEEE802.3 Ethernet links. – Should consider scenarios of one Ethernet network being interconnected by another network, which can be L2VPN, pure IP, Ethernet, or others. Should consider a performance analysis of proposed solutions.

11. Question Is Analysis necessary for these protocols? Is this the right type of Analysis? Who is willing to help with analysis documents? – Existing v4 /v6 work? – Security analysis? – New proposal summary?

12. Protocol Protocol Documents – Architecture comments – V4 protocol Extensions & protocols – V6 protocol Extensions & protocols – Management Questions – Do we need architecture document? – Are multiple solutions needed or acceptable? – Is Coordination with Ethernet solutions (L2VPN, 802.1aq, TRILL, Mac-in-Mac) acceptable?

13. Main 3 Question Does the community think that given the charter revisions discussed during the BOF (subject to review and finalization on the mailing list), a WG should be formed? This work is interesting, but refinement of scope is still requierd? Who thinks a working group should not be formed?

14. Open Mike time