1. Data Center Fabrics

2. Forwarding Today Layer 3 approach: – Assign IP addresses to hosts hierarchically based on their directly connected switch. – Use standard intra-domain routing protocols, eg. OSPF. – Large administration overhead Layer 2 approach: Forwarding on flat MAC addresses Less administrative overhead Bad scalability Low performance – Middle ground between layer 2 and layer 3: VLAN Feasible for smaller scale topologies Resource partition problem

3. Requirements due to Virtualization End host virtualization: – Needs to support large addresses and VM migrations – In layer 3 fabric, migrating the VM to a different switch changes VM’s IP address – In layer 2 fabric, migrating VM incurs scaling ARP and performing routing/forwarding on millions of flat MAC addresses.

4. Motivation Eliminate Over-subscription – Solution: Commodity switch hardware Virtual Machine Migration – Solution: Split IP address from location. Failure avoidance – Solution: Fast scalable routing

5. Architectural Similarities Both approaches use indirection – Application address doesn’t change when VM moves, all that changes in Location address – Location addresses: specifies location in network – Application address: specifies address of VM A network of commodity switches – Reduces energy consumptions – Allows to afford enough switches to eliminate overprovision Central entity to perform name resolution between Location address and application address – Directory Service: VL2 – Fabric Manager: Portland – Both entities are triggered by ARP request. – Stores mapping of LA to AA Gateway devices – Perform encapsulation/decapsulation of external traffic

6. Architecture Differences Routing – VL2: Source routing based Each packet contains the address of all switches to traverse – Portland: topology based routing Location addresses encoding location with the tree Each switch is aware of how to decode location addresses – Forwarding is based on this intimate knowledge. Indirection – VL2: Indirection is on L3: IP-in-IP encapsulation – Portland: Indirection is on L2: IP-to-Pmac ARP functionality: – Portland: ARP returns IP to Pmac – VL2: ARP returns a list of intermediate switches to traverse

7. Portland

8. Fat-Tree Inter-connect racks (of servers) using a fat-tree topology Fat-Tree: a special type of Clos Networks (after C. Clos) K-ary fat tree: three-layer topology (edge, aggregation and core) – each pod consists of (k/2) 2 servers & 2 layers of k/2 k-port switches – each edge switch connects to k/2 servers & k/2 aggr. switches – each aggr. switch connects to k/2 edge & k/2 core switches – (k/2) 2 core switches: each connects to k pods Fat-tree with K=2 8

9. Why? Why Fat-Tree? – Fat tree has identical bandwidth at any bisections – Each layer has the same aggregated bandwidth Can be built using cheap devices with uniform capacity – Each port supports same speed as end host – All devices can transmit at line speed if packets are distributed uniform along available paths Great scalability: k-port switch supports k 3 /4 servers Fat tree network with K = 3 supporting 54 hosts 9

10. PortLand Assuming: a Fat-tree network topology for DC Introduce “pseudo MAC addresses” to balance the pros and cons of flat- vs. topology-dependent addressing PMACs are “topology-dependent,” hierarchical addresses – But used only as “host locators,” not “host identities” – IP addresses used as “host identities” (for compatibility w/ apps) Pros: small switch state & Seamless VM migration Pros: “eliminate” flooding in both data & control planes But requires a IP-to-PMAC mapping and name resolution – a location directory service And location discovery protocol & fabric manager – for support of “plug-&-play” 10

11. PMAC Addressing Scheme PMAC (48 bits): pod.position.port.vmid – Pod: 16 bits; position and port (8 bits); vmid: 16 bits Assign only to servers (end-hosts) – by switches 11 pod position

12. Location Discovery Protocol Location Discovery Messages (LDMs) exchanged between neighboring switches Switches self-discover location on boot up Location Characteristics Technique Tree-level (edge, aggr., core) auto-discovery via neighbor connectivity Position # aggregation switch help edge switches decide Pod # request (by pos. 0 switch only) to fabric manager 12

13. PortLand: Name Resolution Edge switch listens to end hosts, and discover new source MACs Installs mappings, and informs fabric manager 13

14. PortLand: Name Resolution … Edge switch intercepts ARP messages from end hosts send request to fabric manager, which replies with PMAC 14

15. PortLand: Fabric Manager fabric manager: logically centralized, multi-homed server maintains topology and mappings in “soft state” 15

16. VL2

17. Design: Clos Network Same capacity at each layer – No oversubscription Many paths available – Low sensitivity to failures

18. Design: Separate Names from Locations Packet forwarding – VL2 agent (at host) traps packets and encapsulates them Address resolution – ARP requests converted to unicast to directory system – Cached for performance Access control (security policy) via the directory system Directory System User space Kernel Server Machine ApplicationVL2 Agent LookUp (AA) IncapInfo (AA)

19. Design: Separate Names from Locations

20. Design : Valiant Load Balancing Each flow goes through a different random path Hot-spot free for tested TMs

21. Design : VL2 Directory System Built using servers from the data center Two-tiered directory system architecture – Tier 1 : read optimized cache servers (directory server) – Tier 2 : write optimized mapping servers (RSM)

22. Benefits + Drawbacks

23. Benefits VM migration – No need to worry L2 broadcast – Location+address dependence Revisiting fault tolerance – Placement requirements

24. Loop-free Forwarding and Fault-Tolerant Routing Switches build forwarding tables based on their position – edge, aggregation and core switches Use strict “up-down semantics” to ensure loop-free forwarding – Load-balancing: use any ECMP path via flow hashing to ensure packet ordering Fault-tolerant routing: – Mostly concerned with detecting failures – Fabric manager maintains logical fault matrix with per-link connectivity info; inform affected switches – Affected switches re-compute forwarding tables 24

25. Draw Backs Higher failures – Commodity switches fail more frequently No straight forward way to expand – Expand in large increments, values of k Look-up servers – Additional infrastructure servers – Higher upfront startup latency Need special gateway servers

26. Draw Backs Higher failures – Commodity switches fail more frequently No straight forward way to expand – Expand in large increments, values of k Look-up servers – Additional infrastructure servers – Higher upfront startup latency

27. Draw Backs Higher failures – Commodity switches fail more frequently No straight forward way to expand – Expand in large increments, values of k Look-up servers – Additional infrastructure servers – Higher upfront startup latency