Welcome!

Machine Learning Authors: Pat Romanski, Liz McMillan, Yeshim Deniz, Elizabeth White, Zakia Bouachraoui

Blog Feed Post

MLAG: An Example of Complexity that should not be

In Monday’s blog post, Derick explained the network engineering cycle, traversal in the referential space and the need to provide solutions that enable the network engineer to do his or her job better, more accurate, easier, simpler, more complete. We cannot automate or encapsulate a network engineer’s job and we should not try. We must however encapsulate and automate specific tasks and workflows.

Multichassis Link Aggregation (MLAG) is one of those features that should be so straightforward, but isn’t. MLAG allows a single device to be connected to 2 ethernet switches using a single Link Aggregation Group (LAG). The device is configured with a single LAG with ports that are connected to two switches, rather than a single switch. The two switches coordinate between each other and make it appear to the device as if they are single device.

This part is actually straightforward, it really comes down to using a single LACP system-id across both links from both switches. The end device is blind to the fact there are different switches at the end of each link.

MLAG is Complicated

The hardest part of MLAG is the packet forwarding coordination and behavior between the two switches. For instance, if the end device sends a broadcast packet onto one of the links of the LAG towards switch 1 of the MLAG, the solution must ensure that switch 2 does not send that same broadcast packet back to the end device. Because the two switches together create a LAG, the basic rule that a packet received on a LAG can never be send back out that same LAG must be observed. Sounds simple, but if that broadcast packet gets to switch 2, how does it know it came from the device at the other end of the LAG to begin with? Sounds trivial, just look at the source MAC address, but ethernet forwarding usually does not do anything with a source MAC address.

If a broadcast packet comes in the rest of the network and arrives at switch 1 and 2, who will forward this packet? Only one of them can, again to avoid duplication of packets. Similarly for multicast. In multicast rich environments, would you always pick the same switch to forward this onto the LAG, or would you share that responsibility. And if you share, how do you inform the rest of the network that it is this switch for this specific group that is responsible for distribution?

When one of then links in the LAG fails, what does that switch do with packets towards the end device? How does it get that packet to its MLAG peer so that it is delivered? If you have configured MLAG on any popular platform out there, you have now discovered the reason for the private interconnect between two MLAG peers.

They’re all the same, but different

Whether you call it MLAG, SMLT, VSS, vPC, vLAG or anything else, they all implement the same concept. And there is no question that MLAG is a rather complicated feature to implement and get all the data forwarding possibilities right. There are many failure scenarios to consider to ensure that traffic is not lost, looped, or duplicated.

There is however no reason to expose any of this complexity to you as the user. Why do I have to create a port group between two switches, then explain to each that they are MLAG peers on a special VLAN, then stick IP addresses on this VLAN, create an MLAG peering session, verify it is up and running, then create actual MLAG ports that are mapped to some unique identifier I need to track that needs to match up with the one used on the peer? I counted 24 individual configuration steps just to get the MLAG peering configured.

Why so Complicated?

This is a perfect example of exposing the gory details of the scaffolding required for something that as a user really should be as simple as “I want this port on this and that port on that switch to be part of the same LAG”. Because really that is what you want. Sure, for debugging purposes you may need to understand what is communicated between switches and who has taken responsibility for what, but why did you the user have to manually create all this plumbing between the two systems? That should be encapsulated by us, the vendor, so that you can focus on automating the actual provisioning of ports in an MLAG.

And I completely understand the implementation reasons for having 2 switches matched up to become MLAG peers and MLAGs can only exist between those two peers. But it’s one of those limitations imposed on you that should not be, there is absolutely no reason you could not have 3 MLAG peers. Or 4. Or any combination of 2 switches, different for each MLAG. For us there is no difference between a LAG and an MLAG. That is, there most certainly is a difference, but as far as provisioning one goes, they are identical. You simply configure a LAG. And you have a choice to add ports from other switches to that LAG. And that’s it. All that took was a desire to remove these constraints to make your job easier and more accurate.

Focusing on the user experience of the network takes time, it takes determination, it requires a completely different view on delivering capabilities. Read Derick’s blog post from this past Monday and you will get a sense of our beliefs and approach.

 

[Today's fun fact: Sauerkraut is also a member of the cabbage family and should not be considered an insult (ref: yesterday's fun fact). It is fat free, low in calories, provides about a third of daily needs of vitamin C in a single cup and contains iron, calcium, potassium, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and 8 grams of fiber. Americans consume 387 million pounds a year, that is more per capita than Germany. And it was first created in the Alsace in France, not Germany.]

The post MLAG: An Example of Complexity that should not be appeared first on Plexxi.

Read the original blog entry...

More Stories By Marten Terpstra

Marten Terpstra is a Product Management Director at Plexxi Inc. Marten has extensive knowledge of the architecture, design, deployment and management of enterprise and carrier networks.

CloudEXPO Stories
Every organization is facing their own Digital Transformation as they attempt to stay ahead of the competition, or worse, just keep up. Each new opportunity, whether embracing machine learning, IoT, or a cloud migration, seems to bring new development, deployment, and management models. The results are more diverse and federated computing models than any time in our history.
On-premise or off, you have powerful tools available to maximize the value of your infrastructure and you demand more visibility and operational control. Fortunately, data center management tools keep a vigil on memory contestation, power, thermal consumption, server health, and utilization, allowing better control no matter your cloud's shape. In this session, learn how Intel software tools enable real-time monitoring and precise management to lower operational costs and optimize infrastructure for today even as you're forecasting for tomorrow.
"Calligo is a cloud service provider with data privacy at the heart of what we do. We are a typical Infrastructure as a Service cloud provider but it's been designed around data privacy," explained Julian Box, CEO and co-founder of Calligo, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
Isomorphic Software is the global leader in high-end, web-based business applications. We develop, market, and support the SmartClient & Smart GWT HTML5/Ajax platform, combining the productivity and performance of traditional desktop software with the simplicity and reach of the open web. With staff in 10 timezones, Isomorphic provides a global network of services related to our technology, with offerings ranging from turnkey application development to SLA-backed enterprise support. Leading global enterprises use Isomorphic technology to reduce costs and improve productivity, developing & deploying sophisticated business applications with unprecedented ease and simplicity.
While a hybrid cloud can ease that transition, designing and deploy that hybrid cloud still offers challenges for organizations concerned about lack of available cloud skillsets within their organization. Managed service providers offer a unique opportunity to fill those gaps and get organizations of all sizes on a hybrid cloud that meets their comfort level, while delivering enhanced benefits for cost, efficiency, agility, mobility, and elasticity.