VL2: A Scalable and Flexible Data Center Network

A. Greenberg, J. R. Hamilton, N. Jain, S. Kandula, C. Kim, P. Lahiri, D. A. Maltz, P. Patel, S. Sengupta, "VL2: A Scalable and Flexible Data Center Network," ACM SIGCOMM 2009, (August 2009).

This paper presented VL2 (Virtual Layer 2) based Data Center Network with the following key features:

1. Flat addressing to allow services instances to be placed anywhere in the network.
2. 'Valiant' load balancing (VLB)
3. End System based address resolution.

The authors established high utilization and agility to be the foremost goals in their design consideration. Current datacenters suffer from over-subscription of resources and nothing is done to prevent a traffic flood from one service to prevent affecting other. Moreover, IP addresses/VLANs are used to achieve scale. This makes things like VM migration extemely complex and introduces broadcasts.

The authors did an extensive analysis of the traffic patterns in datacenters. Howeover, they found out that there is no particular pattern among the datacenter traffic that could be particularly exploited in desing of the routing protocol. So, they too like PortLand, decided to exploit the topology. They talk about assuming a Clos Network which is a rooted tree and links between Intermediate switched and the aggregation switches form a bipartite graph. The underlying idea of VL2 addressing anf routing is having 2 addresses- application specific IP address (AA) and a location specific IP address (LA). The VL2 agent at each server traps packet from the host and encapsulates the packet with the LA address of the ToR switch of the destination. The VL2 agent in turn knows the AA Vs LA mapping by a directory lookup service. Further, the valiant load balancer (VLB) helps in balancing multiple flows of data over randomized paths.

Critique
Overall, I think that the main strength of the paper lies in the fact that all the observations are supported by large scale experiments and data. This paper also is based on Clos topology, which again raises the issue of how apt is to design a generic protocol over a given topology. Further, another issue in VLB was that of path stretch. Howeover, I was not really conviced when the authors said that this is not much of a problem due to the environement (propagation delay is small) and underlying redundant topology. It would be really interesting to discuss the aspects of PortLand and VL2 in the class and discuss about various design decisions that can be cross implemented to improve both these protocols. I would recommend reading an excellent article It's Microsoft vs. the professors with competing data center architectures and Prof. Amin Vahdat's blog-post that compares PortLand and VL2.