IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cats] [cats] draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-00 -> traffic path enforcement type is missing

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Tue, 05 September 2023 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: cats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC30FC15152E for <cats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FbcYDa0E-zJg for <cats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE2B8C151539 for <cats@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Rfycx5ynmz6J7ng for <cats@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:01:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.31; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:05:48 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.031; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:05:48 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: cats <cats@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RE: [Cats] [cats] draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-00 -> traffic path enforcement type is missing
Thread-Index: AdnfzXglO+H7sG5FQX6yY7jRS1o09w==
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 08:05:48 +0000
Message-ID: <a21ae45f4f414e6ca4553b30a7dd454d@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.199.56.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cats/ydVxKVkMXvjNLGvdOUP-B6MgOH8>
Subject: Re: [Cats] [cats] draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-00 -> traffic path enforcement type is missing
X-BeenThere: cats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Computing-Aware Traffic Steering \(CATS\)" <cats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cats>, <mailto:cats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cats/>
List-Post: <mailto:cats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cats>, <mailto:cats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 08:05:54 -0000

Hi all,
Let's assume that the decision has been made and some traffic/session has been decided to push to service instance X.
How?
It is MANDATORY to avoid states on the transit router hops. It is probably what you mean in requirement R13 (I am not sure because of general "node" terminology, "source node" for sure MUST keep all states).
We have potentially 2 choices:
1. Packet header modifications (like NAT, or to be more precise "like Load Balancer").
2. Establish a tunnel (SRv6, SR-MPLS, VxLAN, whatever). Then only the ingress router would keep states.

Of course, it is possible to be silent about this problem, and let all other WGs decide themselves on their way of implementation.
IMHO: it is better to state clearly that header modification is not an option.

By the way, we are talking here about Quadrillions (or Quintillions?) of additional tunnels on a global scale.
It is evident that only "Source Routing" (SRv6 or SR-MPLS) is capable of handling it because only SR is encoding the path in the packet itself.
Refreshment of huge tables through the control plane is not an option.
Maybe it is better to mention it too.

Best Regards
Eduard Vasilenko
Senior Architect
Network Algorithm Laboratory
Tel: +7(985) 910-1105

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email