Re: L3 DSR

Shawn Nunley <[email protected]> Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:53:13 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.programming.load-balancing.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
I *almost* wish I was going to Interop just to see all you guys, but I'm
working on a new thing these days called ZillionTV (google it), so no trade
shows for me.

If, however, lb-UFC becomes official, I'd hop a plane in an instant.

My money would be on A10... I hear Bruno is a contender.

-Shawn
(ex-NetScaler, ex-A10, my loyalties are divided among them both)

2009/3/31 Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]>

>  Oh dear, I would NEVER suggest such a thing. I was just having fun at a
> friend’s expense.  Plus, I’m pretty big, but Bruno is scrappy! But, Interop
> **is** coming up; hmmmmm.  Maybe we should at least have some sort of
> lb-digest get-together.  Anyone else going to be there?
>
>
>
> And I am SO tempted to lay odds on the A10 vs. Netscaler; but my
> professionalism keeps me from doing so. Can you have a favorite competitor?
> J
>
>
>
> *KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr.*  *|*  Manager, Technical Marketing
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Dane Ruyle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:34 PM
> *To:* Load Baalancing
>
> *Subject:* Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
>
>
>
>
> Yes!  Let's start with A10 vs Netscaler!  :)
>
> *the crowd goes wild!*
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:11:09 -0700
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
>
> Ken,
>
>
>
> Do you mean to say that A10 is... the dark side?
>
>
>
> You know, we haven't had a good smack-down on lb-digest for quite some
> time.  Forget about performance tests and certifications... we need lb-UFC!
>
>
>
> -Shawn  :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/3/31 Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]>
>
> You know—there was a time when Bruno was my protégé, now, sadly, like
> Anakin . . . J
>
> Seriously,  I’m not sure I see how you would use DSCP markings in the
> scenario we were talking about?  Can you enlighten your old mentor?  You
> know—they moved me into marketing—so please use small words and pictures if
> you can.  J
>
>
>
> *KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr.*  *|*  Manager, Technical Marketing
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Bruno Van Dierendonck
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM
>
>
> *To:* 'Load Balancing Mailing List'
> *Subject:* Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
>
>
>
>
>
> In L3 DSR the trick is getting the server to respond with the vip address
> when responding to load balanced requests. With L2 DSR you can easily use
> the source MAC, but with L3 this becomes more challenging. A good way to do
> this is with DSCP. Assuming of course that your router does not manipulate
> DSCP flags. This way the receiving server can distinguish content from the
> load balancer vs other network traffic. This is nice if you have hundreds or
> thousands of servers, as you can split your broadcast domains into smaller
> groups. This is probably not a concern for most customers, but hey if you
> have this problem it’s a pretty nice solution.
>
>
>
> Bruno
>
> Senior System Engineer
>
> *A10 Networks*
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Joo Yong-Seok
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:15 AM
> *To:* Load Balancing Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> VIP health check should be done with real-server MAC address (as a Dmac)
> and
>
> DIP (request packet) should not be changed since all real-servers have the
> loop-back
>
> interfaces. (that's DSR and return packets don't need to be forwarded back
> to L4)
>
>
>
> I'm not quite sure about this topology but in Alteon and other L4 case, it
> looks like having a
>
> n issue.  ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> - yongseok
>
>
>
> 2009/3/30 SungLyeol Choi <[email protected]>
>
> Hello.
>
>
>
> I think those are normal DSR even though L4 is connect to L3 and has two
> different network.
>
> my question was
>
>
>
> Clients
>
>    |
>    |      192.168.10.0/24, VIP : 192.168.10.100
>    |
>
> L2 or L3-SW ==== L4 SW
>    |
>    |      172.16.10.1/24
>
> L3 SW
>
>    l
>    |       10.10.10.0/24
> Servers
>
>
>
> it means Server should be located in other network. my customer told me
> some vendors mentioned that.
>
> in this topology L4 should send client traffic to Server by L3 SW.
>
>
>
> thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Surya ARBY <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
> To: Load Balancing Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
> I guess it protects against L2 broadcast because you can build L2 isolation
> by constraining? return traffic to go to the routing point of the network,
> thus limiting flooding, that's the only sense I take from the sentence :)
>
> Surya
>
> --- En date de?: Lun 30.3.09, Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]> a ?crit?:
>
>
>
> De: Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]>
> Objet: Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
> ?: "Load Balancing Mailing List" <[email protected]>
> Date: Lundi 30 Mars 2009, 17h59
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe I?m forgetting something, but I believe *all*
> DSR (direct server return) is L3.? L2 DSR wouldn?t be too useful
> unless you had one really, really big, flat, private network, would it?
>
>  ?
>
> Most vendors support this type of configuration in one way or
> the other?but I also don?t know of any that recommend the
> configuration, except for very specific circumstances.? But?even in
> video streaming these days, there are benefits to running the traffic back
> through
> the ADC in order to manage out-bound traffic flow?and there are plenty of
> boxes that can handle the throughput.
>
>  ?
>
> So?when you talk about ?protecting L2 Broadcast??what
> exactly are you trying to do and why?
>
>  ?
>
> --and, if I?m being complete silly, please forgive me?it
> is Monday morning.? J
>
>  ?
>
> KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr.??|??Manager,
> Technical Marketing
>
>  ?
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SungLyeol Choi
>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:46 AM
>
> To: [email protected]
>
> Subject: [load balancing] L3 DSR
>
>
>
>  ?
>
> Hi guys.
>
>
>
>  ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you heard about L3 DSR?
>
>
>
>
>
> which vendors support this?
>
>
>
>
>
> I heard L3 DSR could protect L2
> broadcast. but I think LB should consider a lot of things to support that.
>
>
>
>
>
>  ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://vegan.net/pipermail/lb-l/attachments/20090330/6b17b93c/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:39 -0700
> From: Joo Yong-Seok <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
> To: Load Balancing Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
>        <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> I suppsoe that L2 or L3 config doesn't matter. the important thing in DSR
> is
> "returning packet" should
> not be forwarded to L4 and L4 should not do any processing for that.
>
> Clients
>    |
>    |      192.168.10.0/24, VIP : 192.168.10.100
>    |
> L3-SW ==== L4 SW
>    |
>    |
>    |       10.10.10.0/24
> Servers
>
> In this topoloty, L4 can have two interfaces for 192.168.10.0/24 and
> 10.10.10.0/24. In Servers point of
> view, GW should be L3-SW. Client requests will be forwarded to L3 but L3
> knows the VIP location (L4)
> and it will forward the request via L2-fwd.
>
> L4 will do a client processing and send the packet to Servers. In this
> moment, DSR should be enabled
> and request packet's DIP is not modified. and Server will received the
> packet and then forward it to L3-SW
> since L3-SW is a gateway for servers.
>
> I suppose that this is L3 DSR and return packet will not traverse to L4.
>
> Also, L4-SW is in the same network with servers, health check by using
>
>
> real-mac (VIPhealth) is also
> working and No mac flapping. (Since L4 is doing L3 fwd + L4 processing and
> packet's SIP should be
> modified. L3-SW will not have any duplicate mac-address entry in the fdb. -
> Even there are same mac
> in fdb, if VLAN is different, there should be no issues to do a L2-fwd).
>
> I have no idea why L2 broadcast issue is there on DSR. (do you mean
> "mac-flapping"? - this can cause
> flooding in the network).
>
> Best regards,
>
> - yongseok
>
> 2009/3/30 SungLyeol Choi <[email protected]>
>
> > Hi guys.
> > Have you heard about L3 DSR?
> > which vendors support this?
> > I heard L3 DSR could protect L2 broadcast. but I think LB should consider
> a
> > lot of things to support that.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lb-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> > Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> > http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> > http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://vegan.net/pipermail/lb-l/attachments/20090330/87d718d9/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:43:17 -0700
> From: Joo Yong-Seok <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] L3 DSR
> To: Load Balancing Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Message-ID:
>        <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> There is TYPO.
>
> SIP ---> SMAC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - yongseok
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Joo Yong-Seok <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > I suppsoe that L2 or L3 config doesn't matter. the important thing in DSR
> > is "returning packet" should
> > not be forwarded to L4 and L4 should not do any processing for that.
> >
> > Clients
> >     |
> >     |      192.168.10.0/24, VIP : 192.168.10.100
> >     |
> > L3-SW ==== L4 SW
> >     |
> >     |
> >     |       10.10.10.0/24
> > Servers
> >
> > In this topoloty, L4 can have two interfaces for 192.168.10.0/24 and
> > 10.10.10.0/24. In Servers point of
> > view, GW should be L3-SW. Client requests will be forwarded to L3 but L3
> > knows the VIP location (L4)
> > and it will forward the request via L2-fwd.
> >
> > L4 will do a client processing and send the packet to Servers. In this
> > moment, DSR should be enabled
> > and request packet's DIP is not modified. and Server will received the
> > packet and then forward it to L3-SW
> > since L3-SW is a gateway for servers.
> >
> > I suppose that this is L3 DSR and return packet will not traverse to L4.
> >
>
> > Also, L4-SW is in the same network with servers, health check by using
>
>
> > real-mac (VIPhealth) is also
> > working and No mac flapping. (Since L4 is doing L3 fwd + L4 processing
> and
> > packet's SIP should be
> > modified. L3-SW will not have any duplicate mac-address entry in the fdb.
> -
> > Even there are same mac
> > in fdb, if VLAN is different, there should be no issues to do a L2-fwd).
> >
> > I have no idea why L2 broadcast issue is there on DSR. (do you mean
> > "mac-flapping"? - this can cause
> > flooding in the network).
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - yongseok
> >
> > 2009/3/30 SungLyeol Choi <[email protected]>
> >
>
> >>  Hi guys.
> >> Have you heard about L3 DSR?
> >> which vendors support this?
> >> I heard L3 DSR could protect L2 broadcast. but I think LB should
> consider
> >> a lot of things to support that.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>
>

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki