[Bier] comments on draft-ietf-roll-ccast

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Sun, 12 November 2017 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A7F124BFA; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ctvBN90LKDFr; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (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 EA9F91201FA; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 9so3644558wme.4; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YYYtaNb84LZxCmz92dVzqO2RTGmMMH+saccjutyUHHY=; b=Gkf2u20EHsey6uWkS2nQeHD7oBTksVunGUsxCCgTVuxBjX/l8Jf1LaHJZVVRVw/Saf uaG7WskIXxQG3G+F/DvY5+tIKnIIQOCAjipaCv6uzIqo5umDb5jyr4gWfpeAInFj244X pCAfz7uogmQxF0mLVFjXv7/xqDdElvcFWiQ7Bnc800kQGhEVpwoJvVms2Jl0ssnkaFDL Z/6/8OLQTnWelBzJNlqyKxf9+bOrBuRe0nHWPmWSDnqfvQsnudm7tEq033zVK5uBNIMd DsUctS5ACZeXKcSvf/Jph7Y5a3EDjSs9B8ysrUhEwRNRT3Tz5QoIkTOoxzbzbTByN+Lx pqUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YYYtaNb84LZxCmz92dVzqO2RTGmMMH+saccjutyUHHY=; b=jjEMDsvChIWbxkGjDx/2CHHVvHV30DMA05Y83ZItytfsYkpMoJYa9uVjAoNQW22X/O 512zGKgEGxCGsgvI+lw3gsGTqyPpqMNxdbt6dcef0vil1HVocEn787ObBp3GUK3CJtU3 ko/0OaRD+qy7ZdqeV2/iH+BSO8P+LpOSfkGfNKTtJ6UPT8nQ16v4BSWX+i0p77PMUZer oLUIwo42r4fGWpIW4+6F9ov9BYdBQ4i4uTJxQX+rnv8ZzkqaX1XXh8bUesb6QjoepbKz 3+qWB+CkZombw9eHliXs/JAUUjf/o1zA0XG5q4kfQtK5wIA6vmke7+nUJ7buZZnGX5bo 5WNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4aUt/vA34c/BsY9dhMCbGIvvJoe5Vwf44kdpDXggjZbOXIAZAC WPmThY9dQ1o6J3hPfatlGIPc3d7qKyA4GTs9PHPw5bV7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMb3CB/XXy2p8w9CJfEONXuKhL2u4LkDRuO6r/wcouIShucJzt5qOjVRdxm2InRz8ix6Hs/chFfqwydZGRokIfs=
X-Received: by 10.80.142.79 with SMTP id 15mr7216284edx.153.1510456399897; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:13:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.164.220 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:12:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:12:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hNR96-T7YayKN9WTqiKWFs6And+Zx7Ve2471hp4h8+mLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-roll-ccast@ietf.org, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c199e562a2699055dc089b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/CsvzALYRkxZrUIu7lv4CL1BANQU>
Subject: [Bier] comments on draft-ietf-roll-ccast
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 03:21:26 -0000

Read with interest. Intriguing and something that was rattling in the back
of my skull already for a while having dealt with Blooms in other venues
;-)

Generally, I think I would encourage enquiries into a flavor of BIER
bitmasks being BLOOM filters (especially seeing it was
draft-bergmann-bier-ccast
first ;-), i.e. we don't consider the bitmask something being a perfect
hash of <SD,SI> but rather a BLOOM for a set of <SD,SI>s or maybe even
total SD.  In principle the mask signifies all possible destinations
addressed (incl. false positives) and on forwarding the fastpath has to
hash all possible outgoing destinations on an interface and see whether
they match incoming BLOOM.

--- tony


Footnote: How computationally expensive is that? Well, depends on bunch
variables of course and how much unnecessary replications are we willing to
live with. And of course how many destinations we address on average, the
higher N on bloom the worse the performance unless we are willing to go
high m or accept high p (I use standard BLOOM variable notation here). As
the draft astutely observes, lots of that stuff can be pre-computed on
outgoing interfaces already (in fact just for the BFR-ids that are seen in
the signalling and not all 16K) ...

Simple sample with an intriguing number:

a) assuming 16K BFRs & 1% being addressed on average (N=160) and
b) allowing for p=20% false positives (i.e. 190 BFRs would get it)  and

we could fit with k=2 hash functions e.thing into m=~512 bits mask size.

Of course the false positives go up dramatically if N grows.

Another interesting observation is that using blooms would liberate us from
the 16K BFR-id scaling of technology which in itself maybe an interesting
angle.

There are variations like attenuaned filters but I won't go there further
...

As a quick thought we could even imagine distributing in parallel

MPLS label = <SI,SD,BML>
MPLS label = BLOOM on <SI 1-4, SD, BML>

whereas the BLOOM can be used by the source if e.g. a group is addressed
that only flips a bunch of bits spread across the SIs 1-4 which would be
far more bandwitdth efficient than sending 4 copies.  in 256 bits we can
address up to 26 destinations with p=0.01 albeit k>6