Re: [CCAMP] The description of Path Key retaining time in RFC5553

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Fri, 15 November 2013 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4603B11E81CA for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:04:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJOLTbridAYa for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F65D11E810D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail8-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.243) by VA3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.7.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:07 +0000
Received: from mail8-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail8-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC0C380473; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz98dI9371Ic85fh542I1432Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail8-va3: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454003)(24454002)(13464003)(199002)(189002)(87936001)(87266001)(66066001)(81342001)(2656002)(76482001)(46102001)(81542001)(47976001)(50986001)(49866001)(4396001)(33646001)(47736001)(54356001)(51856001)(65816001)(53806001)(80022001)(16236675002)(15202345003)(74366001)(74316001)(19609705001)(77096001)(56816003)(83072001)(15975445006)(74876001)(74706001)(85306002)(31966008)(54316002)(80976001)(59766001)(81686001)(74662001)(77982001)(79102001)(69226001)(56776001)(76796001)(83322001)(19580405001)(19300405004)(76786001)(81816001)(19580395003)(47446002)(74502001)(63696002)(76576001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB142; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.239.10; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail8-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail8-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1384549444689875_6140; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.247]) by mail8-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1133460041; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by VA3EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (10.7.99.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:04 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:03 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.820.5; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:01 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.197]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.197]) with mapi id 15.00.0820.005; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:01 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] The description of Path Key retaining time in RFC5553
Thread-Index: AQHO2+75nyh5MwjjqEemfNXW9E7a+JobcMqAgAVubRCABNrUAIABC0WAgAALnvA=
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:00 +0000
Message-ID: <d8657f77cb10483daa127494974b944d@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA8BDE1@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CEA81ADA.8319C%zali@cisco.com> <CADOd8-swb-0ZRzUEWZMXuVQ-HPuo9Qv0wrqe_dEQ_nHgh8md0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADOd8-swb-0ZRzUEWZMXuVQ-HPuo9Qv0wrqe_dEQ_nHgh8md0A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10]
x-forefront-prvs: 0031A0FFAF
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d8657f77cb10483daa127494974b944dBY2PR05MB142namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] The description of Path Key retaining time in RFC5553
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:04:17 -0000

Cyril,

A very nice note regarding a very nice draft.  I have a few questions for clarification, viz, is the reason why 'Path Key' is called that because it deals with paths and not LSPs?  Given this, doesn't our 'stateful PCE thingy', as defined by Zafar, need to maintain path state and not LSP state?  Given the transient nature of LSPs doesn't this actually make a lot of sense?

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Zafar Ali (zali)
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] The description of Path Key retaining time in RFC5553

Hi,
please see inline for comments.

On 15 November 2013 04:12, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com<mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com>>
Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:09 PM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com<mailto:zhang.xian@huawei.com>>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: The description of Path Key retaining time in RFC5553

>Please don't argue scaliblity issue because you can see even a GMPLS node
>can store lots of informaiton.
>
Fatai-

I did not get what you are saying. What I was saying is:

* Tunnel-id is 16 bit. I.e., client name space is 16 bit. There can be
more than one LSP per tunnel.
* Path key is 16 bits. I.e., server name space is 16 bits. Each LSP needs
a Path Key.

I do not recall that each LSP needs a path key, each path does, but not each LSP.
So the scalability is not related to amount of LSPs, but the amount of path use, which scale quite differently than the number of LSPs.

* There is 1:N relationship between PCC and PCE (server). PCE sever may
even be centralized.
* You are requiring (Path key, path info) "state" to be stored at the PCE
server for the life time of the connections.

That is correct, the PCE need to keep a state on the path used, but using the term statefull in that case is confusing and misleading, as its tied to a full LSP DB. TED itself is a state too.
* Path keys have hold-off timer of 30 minutes before they can be reused.

Hence, in your solution, PCE server would run out of Path Keys much before
clients runs out of tunnel name space. In your solution, if you have a
centralized PCE, you can only support 64K connection IN THE NETWORK! I am
not sure why you want to ignore these scaling restrictions.
as stated before, you would support a maximum of 64k Paths, given the diversity constraint you want to support.
In any case the scaling of the solution is to be considered, but is there other problem with that solution?
This solution is attractive as it provides a complete solution ( deploy a PCE colocated with the LSR, only resolving  PKS, the rest is already defined).

Regards,
Cyril.
Thanks

Regards...Zafar

>

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp