Re: [Anima] ANIMA when there is a system-wide issue

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 01 December 2020 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E903A0644 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ospDdaIMw-Mo for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA1D3A0646 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l11so287945plt.1 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MihYpmNp/AJy2cwdHQ7aASpeZPGfUGqN8ktdgTW9zsI=; b=lJx6zeX1G5qvnJ3s/VisLZa3K3wklF0HjLPlVNhmzKBTYIZ8lm1uFxqdlGhiEBioDD TTQ8RN8kbtO6nUCrfvkYJdpUJLfmFkjh2efjVqsNBdF2zfMFdXzUMcXC4524Zxom43JM bI25FHfrGw0OWDEfamA6v8vnHwZFdASzAMJks9Rq8CITtMSmBopBrLBd6tWgWYDCyhB6 ZyLwiLzu1a4BzOB+Nvk8WZscgFjkOXiMSrDc47zrqvv4KQ9PJdbWJzMZdXU6XKotTaSV aqh2MABO0vFWJfq/yGDJYn+d4G8ac1bwp8Vd692pQ3lHudoKntP06FxPi9G6YsQbeuve k+jQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MihYpmNp/AJy2cwdHQ7aASpeZPGfUGqN8ktdgTW9zsI=; b=M0rz8yNGyBfUEIsajBbAXWy7rGbRuq8XUBmoM+3noMbjUpUjIP8IUuSPVTx88N2PHH loXufTUEF76XlD6QF28v3Isj0CAMQw0ujS4F9nswIwkocQY9iAp8tPiXRejIEI8U0gIH wiTrWYIYvmUVRFGct/JKadJXRvU2hBBGgZViMkZyonl4OrO65NIZWdTyBuLO5blr2vzw UfE+SV3ZnKD3xfzfzQJTHtj6QDrlNsozI+pX3+lPWT7XGuuyPw5eom5ASjWq2+LWBFyv CKC9zmQy7jE6T3NCuy3KHcihnVriyPmOJIVrzQGySYUCDfrij9LBy7XhGwF4YlPmK/7T tN7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531KOO9DpSsdH7/360GhcwC7jNNTz3nU9wRItXXQ3e23OGiHczrx n4OpBwJTK/yhh8oElpLnqa5njOkEPtRa/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHPBrsH81JKnwi5C5rnv3yxtyJg1Mz4ejZ+wePRn/Vct7kIgZjQJCPhXpJe+GLjug/1iS/Tg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a45:: with SMTP id o63mr448152pjo.146.1606790230078; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id l8sm266520pjq.22.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: Anima WG <>
References: <> <29097.1606779376@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:37:06 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <29097.1606779376@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ANIMA when there is a system-wide issue
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 02:37:12 -0000

On 01-Dec-20 12:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>     > Perhaps there is something we should specify in ANIMA to prevent the
>     > ANIMA infrastructure falling into this sort of trap: when there is a
>     > system-wide issue (such as hitting an O/S resource limit everywhere at
>     > the same time) it also prevents the autonomic mechanisms from working.
> I think you mean, that it should not also prevent the autonomic system?
> I think that key is:
>   1) allocate resources (including threads) up-front
>   2) do not dynamically allocate threads per interface, but rather use async
>     routines.
> But, I don't know what we could write into the specification to make this
> happen.  It seems that we really just need smart implementers.

I think the IETF could do better on "Implementation Considerations" in
general. For now, I'll make a note to add something in the "Robustness"
section of the ASA Guidelines document.