Re: [Bier] ASIC restrictions

Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de> Tue, 15 November 2022 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
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 DC234C1526EB for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uni-tuebingen.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3RYIHt1zZh8Z for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx04.uni-tuebingen.de (mx04.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.5.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A0AC14F74C for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] (ip-095-208-117-140.um33.pools.vodafone-ip.de [95.208.117.140]) by mx04.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CA5A2125260; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:46:46 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx04.uni-tuebingen.de 0CA5A2125260
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-tuebingen.de; s=20211202prod; t=1668552413; bh=IFPoJoGw0ezwO7dXr8ZmFZuibm8bKO5hxCKF8L04UpA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Bxg26yVYS9d+y7zmg0XvrtVwI0EV4v96oAn53kbjgY4ZE1XLqhYyGlea860O6tG86 U3ZbzIQcOYt3JnDmGNVPi3Fjq4QcjwZzfgEt6UnY9JJNPWoSVZFN6AokXT0Q/cuzsS eaxzV2nJR2ZD/iWXwIo2oTk6Hlgwr6RuqesTk0hLnxCrk+8v9sA6CdcqSTraM2YwY3 rnIvxzG/ICJmc5zmPDSQm8tF544uP5btfWbNb6YE+acNYYlj/tPtbwGyYyTFURnvm1 kYZ6CE8k3R9WSMbFl7z6n2W763PNael/Un3ELZeVBTgA3AJgk/T+AJM0oBTDut5gO8 6UKWrEuSQDZxw==
Message-ID: <9a33f62f-355d-7366-5038-5a329b579cf2@uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:46:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
References: <81ff0e3b3bad4e6a892e3aa005aa9e9a@huawei.com> <CA+wi2hN2UpY4ZX51ofWfXDoPu3vW+8zZLtL4LDXrH2sh605Osw@mail.gmail.com> <Y3NllOEy2JdJ2NOZ@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <Y3NllOEy2JdJ2NOZ@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/DHttH9ZM11snZZtqbsSpw8RqkKg>
Subject: Re: [Bier] ASIC restrictions
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 22:47:02 -0000

Hi Toerless,

Am 15.11.2022 um 11:10 schrieb Toerless Eckert:
...
> It is quite common though to have replication through lookup of multicast
> tables, such as presented in Steffen/Michaels P4 presentation, but i am not
> too sure, how much post-processing is then still possible. One has to remember that
> every BIER packet copy can have a different bitstring, because of the bit clear
> operation which is specific to each copy. Usually, the only post-processing
> on platforms with multicst table lookup is then limited to some L2 adjacencies.
> If Tofino can actually still do a per-packet rewrite of the bitstring (as required by BIER)
> after such a replication, then that would speak for Tofino. 

This is exactly what we do. Tofino's processing pipeline is divided into 
an ingress ingress and egress part. The operations in the egress part 
are specific for the outgoing port. The behavior is described in a short 
paragraph in VI.A.2.d of the paper:
https://atlas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth22-Sub-2.pdf

> If Tofino can not
> do that, then that would speak for BIER-TE, because BIER-TE does
> only require an ingres clearing of bits, common for all packet copies (except for
> one crazy optional feature).

I second you that this is an advantage of BIER-TE and RBS and its 
variants compared to some other more sclalable alternatives for BIER. 
Some of them have been presented in IETF (under different names, 
possibly only as drafts), but so far they have not yet been intensively 
discussed and understood. They require quite some effort to clear all 
relevant bits. However, this aspect is subject to study and not yet 
documented.

Kind regards

Michael

> 
> Cheers
>      Toerless


-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:menth@uni-tuebingen.de
http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de