IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 25 September 2017 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AA0134310; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvEg2_U7tax4; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85F2133085; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5985F2009E; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C1D80CFA; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:44:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <11c60420-0460-9f6e-50ac-e7485d58a5ce@gmail.com>
References: <150044138257.25233.12391471568614147773@ietfa.amsl.com> <f5e84812-c2fa-cc16-4105-20f7791110f4@gmail.com> <20170918060429.GC31832@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7e70c270-6cf6-58b9-2ce4-d811f9cd1c87@gmail.com> <13482.1506195787@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <11c60420-0460-9f6e-50ac-e7485d58a5ce@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:44:22 -0400
Message-ID: <24380.1506347062@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Zzs5Es7ZmLoKLBJ9zKxrhgva4i8>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt]
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:44:25 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Given that, one will expect to see the same M_FLOOD from the same sender via
    >> multiple paths.  That's fine, and I think it's good.  But, comparing them is
    >> kind of meaningless, because once you find out who the sender is, the unicast
    >> routing takes over, and you will take the unicast direction only.
    >> If one hears announcements from multiple senders, then there might be
    >> different directions, but the TTL you see in the M_FLOOD may have NOTHING to
    >> do with what the unicast cost is.

    > True, in a general topology - the LL multicasts combined with GRASP relaying
    > will ammount to a spanning tree rooted at the M_FLOOD sender, but the unicast
    > paths will be set by RPL. There's no reason they will be congruent. They might
    > be. This is a good point!

As an example, take any ring-like metro-ethernet architecture that an ISP
might deploy.  They have multiple redundant paths across the network, and
they use them for customer data... there is a lot of work going to balance
traffic across such structures.

On top of that, impose a strict DODAG structure with the NOC as the root, and
one can see that ACP traffic between adjacent nodes on a metro-ethernet ring
may well travel all the way to the DODAG root and down again, while an
M_FLOOD will travel sideways.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email