[Bier] BIER: draft-eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01 with performance analysis simulation

tte@cs.fau.de Wed, 09 February 2022 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB613A080A for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23XgSJl_sp7T for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 656C83A07F7 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143135499EC; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:18:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id F16914EA5DF; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:18:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 20:18:44 +0100
From: tte@cs.fau.de
To: bier@ietf.org
Cc: bing.xu@huawei.com
Message-ID: <YgQTlG4sgMM+cFPG@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/ONv7AJ63CFr3CsnRavNBkrxuw9E>
Subject: [Bier] BIER: draft-eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01 with performance analysis simulation
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:18:55 -0000


Robin did add a section (6.3) describing an initial performance gain analysis
of CGM2/RBS to the github source (https://github.com/toerless/bier-cgm2-rbs), and
i just did a bit of editorial fixup and posted it as -01 of the draft. 

This actually is the first time i actually like the HTML'ized version of a
draft, because the topology picture is so large it doesn't fit a single page:


The interesting piece about the comparison is that it is actually comparing
CGM2/RBS to BIER, and not BIER-TE. Because BIER itself should be requiring less
copies than BIER-TE, so the gain of CGM2/RBS over BIER-TE should be even higher,
but the fact alone that you get away with fewer packet copies to large
receiver sets even though the bitstring also needs to encode the path/tree
towards the receivers is really cool.

Robin, two Q:

1. The new text mentions "in our graphs", but the text does not include any such graphs (yet).
I guess such a graph would be even worse to convert to ASCII than the topology.
Maybe post whatever format you have those results in to github (PDF, png...) 
and then we actually may want to see if/how a PDF version of the draft could include
better than just ASCII art. Certainly a good reason to finally try it out.
And short term we can just add references to such visuals to the draft.

2; Is it correct to assume that the hops through the topology that you simulated
are "just" shortest-path, maybe with some ECMP choice - aka: the same paths that
also BIER would choose given some "default" IGP routing setup ?