IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] ECMP routing

<7riw77@gmail.com> Sun, 14 October 2018 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3B0130DDE for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 YiQrbG7BYJO6 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616ED1200D7 for <babel@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id q5-v6so10731081qki.6 for <babel@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=ysuwydFZM5Z2bjKnkggUwaKMWhiY+9tRqL3BOupDMfU=; b=sZY+KoLndrMT3JUB1U5/3K78X7nrKguLmfXTBoVrTFuSX23OVbQMpItbvDt8U8BMn3 yKWMKk6LEFtyli5e8v2kmOi4khdBOws4P2QyAXHxmYGi2LiXdP1R7iZPop15CnRQeSSA lsjGQy0AHOHQTNt6UMEepMii2Ulx+z6EzfADsjyO5Nd8x7UCON/G1NW8VKC3td5sQf0t zTfHQjcng7szJS3N2bZj6UZIWxsN1vujQtzE7yLsaMiACtQ6//Iog/VvVgSK6DiGvv7X IygFSI4F1k7gbRCPuMYFMB8ghRNE+mnejviz7tn9CQYWwqt7c+NkTI9MiK96gAO4ZGVC d5gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=ysuwydFZM5Z2bjKnkggUwaKMWhiY+9tRqL3BOupDMfU=; b=PAw644QrqMJLpfT3YvCQMCjzT8r8f8HzszC+BjqLKsvrhX9kMiJjbpNkGSTErQPk4r 5u+B8E8CTpHHtS6dGNCU+JbiMQl4cnJwzdY+W5AWtJ/Blm3Oh7Z3Lofcan0eZIzX9DuI ssRT0rQRXb9AOzF7fjgRNdwwjX9cuOQcA/XdnMYkhCniXdBhzNeEzSIuIiTVo1qrsTxj c1WD79eR2wY7dL3km6cyFzTRhHBJ3XWV9xdLrvY7X8psDTRd02A0Jjd9VxfdfXB3qotk dPBPY8K7We1NyZp6TkU466nm0qa3B9JL9VMSxROUeCPSSpoWyw0sKBJu45v4+asAc9B0 Nnhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogQaWM7mzfsRRSo3UQV+r7iG2LVPKZPgNUDXhIasCE47umpmK+A upLBAuKw21hD7gdvCDmCVGQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63A3CKW4cv6uToHAJHjlkuUy0yFPK1bKK5b5qi7y90X5V8ah36sav5cOt+k4mIRvEWp3+O0ug==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e804:: with SMTP id a4-v6mr13209651qkg.242.1539551988509; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Russ ([2600:1700:720:1050:a8da:5ec0:8b54:9cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s71-v6sm6111145qkl.86.2018.10.14.14.19.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: 7riw77@gmail.com
To: 'Juliusz Chroboczek' <jch@irif.fr>, "'STARK, BARBARA H'" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, babel@ietf.org
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DEEA160@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7nink9j.wl-jch@irif.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87a7nink9j.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 17:19:47 -0400
Message-ID: <088901d46403$a2e4a540$e8adefc0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGSnfYdOYnOaCn7U8uV331uJR7LlgIV0oRppZIcTcA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/2gCGNyKc5vAX1gPEQb7Ax2xOuIU>
Subject: Re: [babel] ECMP routing
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 21:19:51 -0000

>   - ECMP does not improve performance in all topologies; in fact, in many
>     topologies, it decreases performance; hence, successful deployment of
>     ECMP requires competent network administration, and it is not clear to
>     me that Babel is being actively deployed in the kind of topologies
>     where ECMP is worthwile.

Can you explain why this is? If you are doing ECMP on a per-flow basis, rather than a per-packet basis, and given there is more than one flow, it should always improve performance. It might be there are congested links downstream you are avoiding by not doing ECMP, but even without ECMP you're just as likely be on the congested link as not...

😊 /r

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status