Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited

hemant@mnkcg.com Fri, 19 May 2023 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hemant@mnkcg.com>
X-Original-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062EEC14CE22 for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnkcg.com
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 M0sDRJUuQ24C for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web50.dnchosting.com (web50.dnchosting.com [192.64.150.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCDCEC14CF12 for <coin@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnkcg.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To: References:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=D9Bzu5rCN9y0OOzJfqi1NKbi8806jwAFib8WNXxVsMk=; b=WvWPHwQLpHOb5bU1aYAhovY/be 7bva179u8/o+NxivvDus/dQITR2247YKyXnPGMJuz5QpuCjniYOu9bhnvUrXJvKdIrMmRtpkevrQ+ Jjq+LEDA3hAe+NZ+Qso0SRrByxDMUZGOHaDW0CDc7lHEmuWNFImj+51XJGRRgO8BHBE5A1Ccw9MR3 scJjcLnmx+LOV6xUra2EP3ZWPLx12ywLyHm6O4eRd1mMmR3XQ23jt8QTL6LqP16M+vZ1qVOucpc6w AHqX+43ZtQwKSX1N2UXibJUKkgnSKJxg4xIxL5RgPac+OiHqKYF4ughHpKZocKr4vPZhCU+iz+Ufe keV/b6jg==;
Received: from [76.191.34.66] (port=45255 helo=hemantPC) by web50.dnchosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <hemant@mnkcg.com>) id 1q042M-0001zg-22; Fri, 19 May 2023 13:37:07 -0400
From: hemant@mnkcg.com
To: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de>, 'Haoyu Song' <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: 'Hesham ElBakoury' <helbakoury@gmail.com>, ehalep@mojatatu.com, "'Bernier, Daniel'" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, 'Marie-Jose Montpetit' <marie@mjmontpetit.com>, 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>, 'coinrg-chairs' <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <BY3PR13MB47876236862ABECD69BF97679A7F9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAFvDQ9q2_5-msxeHYgbZfy3RJB6he3kEQheRe=1qfEdUwP3HxQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB47879D6486069FDA49D6252C9A7F9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <009f01d989b5$3f0a5d30$bd1f1790$@mnkcg.com> <ZGZ5MEal+NPtfDvg@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BY3PR13MB47871414A1B9BB37A197C3A99A7F9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <000801d989cb$39f6c3e0$ade44ba0$@mnkcg.com> <ZGbBWIPaH8d2lgiQ@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <006d01d989ef$d7d04540$8770cfc0$@mnkcg.com> <BY3PR13MB4787D6D30F2F1F6B20F2507B9A7C9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <ZGekyuneBRDRxobA@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZGekyuneBRDRxobA@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 13:37:05 -0400
Message-ID: <00de01d98a78$88895330$999bf990$@mnkcg.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJ5XjKHXRZ079Kn5C8IlAHf6VYWWQHQkggTAgZMr7oCoDdxIgHQvzjeAok0br4B7yF4rgJgB/SUAMIlhiUByGfkJQIys9jsrYNG/WA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-us
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DA_01D98A57.000A1970"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - web50.dnchosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mnkcg.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: web50.dnchosting.com: authenticated_id: hemant@mnkcg.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: web50.dnchosting.com: hemant@mnkcg.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/coin/xd5XKJ0A3XPsoavDe32fcWJSjG4>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
X-BeenThere: coin@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "COIN: Computing in the Network" <coin.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/coin/>
List-Post: <mailto:coin@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 17:37:14 -0000

P4 supports variable length parsing. Regarding memory optimizations on cpu, vpp has optimized memory for both instructions and data. All these optimizations are available in my company's P4toVPP compiler. TM is still an open issue to work on.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de> 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: hemant@mnkcg.com; 'Hesham ElBakoury' <helbakoury@gmail.com>; ehalep@mojatatu.com; 'Bernier, Daniel' <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Marie-Jose Montpetit' <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>; 'coinrg-chairs' <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited

Right.

For high speed router/switch (>= 100gbps/interface) validation:
  P4 implementations on Tofino are great as proof of concept - if it can be done.
  If P4 implementation on Tofino does not work, other proof points are needed,

For medium speed "software forwarding" validation:
  P4 creates too many limitations. All CPU have float, and/or SMDI, and/or
  more flexible memory access options and likely several other aspects not
  easily utilized by P4.

For generic specification:
  IMHO above limitations are at the core of why P4 is insufficient.
  I very much like several structural aspects of P4, they would be great
  starting points for general purpose spec. Such as header parsing specs
  (need to be extended for variable length though).
  Aka: Anything we can use from P4 which is more/better declarative than
  C/C++ is IMHO useful. Just lets not introduce constraints: Validation on
  different type of forwarding platforms is different from a single
  specification.
  And we are also missing good DSL spec options for TM i fear...

Cheers
    Toerless
  
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 04:02:57PM +0000, Haoyu Song wrote:
> I think the discussion is off the point. We are discussing whether or not P4 is suitable for a standard specification language for general dataplane processing and forwarding applications. To fulfill that purpose,  it needs to be target/architecture independent; it needs to be concise and expressive to cover various dataplane functions which may not be conceivable today (e.g., in-network computing applications).  
> Unfortunately, I don't think P4 can meet these requirements now 
> (imagine all the pseudo code in RFCs are translated to P4). Of course, 
> it can be limited to just support certain functions, e.g., to document 
> the header formats and parsing process (but here I don't see the 
> advantage of P4 either)
> 
> Haoyu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hemant@mnkcg.com <hemant@mnkcg.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 6:19 PM
> To: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de>
> Cc: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; 'Hesham ElBakoury' 
> <helbakoury@gmail.com>; ehalep@mojatatu.com; 'Bernier, Daniel' 
> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Marie-Jose Montpetit' 
> <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>; 'coinrg-chairs' 
> <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> 
> Toerless,
> 
> Only externs defined in core.p4 are in a library. Externs defined in an architecture include file, e.g., v1model.p4 are implemented in target-specific back end and are extensions. An example of a target extern is vpp accelerator in Octeon 10. Neither P4-16 spec nor PNA support floating point and neither does my compiler. Floating point in used be AI/ML. The float point numbers would have to be converted to integer. Google's Tensor chip also converts float to integer for ML.
> 
> If you want to work with the linux kernel, see the ebpf architecture include file, https://github.com/p4lang/p4c/blob/main/p4include/ebpf_model.p4. Doesn't the file have externs which have totally abstracted linux kernel data structs and functions?
> 
> Hemant
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of 'Toerless Eckert'
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 8:23 PM
> To: hemant@mnkcg.com
> Cc: 'Haoyu Song' <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; 'Hesham ElBakoury' 
> <helbakoury@gmail.com>; ehalep@mojatatu.com; 'Bernier, Daniel' 
> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Marie-Jose Montpetit' 
> <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>; 'coinrg-chairs' 
> <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> 
> Hemant,
> 
> Externs and functions are not an extension to the language. 
> They are really just libraries.
> 
> Syntactic changes/extensions such as for parsing/deparsing, new types, such as float/double - those would be language extensions.
> 
> This makes the use of P4 cumbersome on any platform that can do more than the worst-case-chip against which the P4 language is designed (aka: Tofino).
> 
> For example on your OCTEON P4 compiler: The ARM A72 does support floating point numbers. If you implemented support for them via the mechanisms supported by P4, the way i understood it, you could still not write simple P4 programs for OCTEON then like:
> 
>     float a, b, c
>     a = b * c / 3.2;
> 
> You may have a set of externs/functions through which you could do this, but it would look a lot more ugly.
> 
> Right ? If not, pls. explain - i would be happy!
> 
> And Haoyu's argument was that when we want to suggest to use P4 as the reference specification or base forwarding programming in the linux kernel, then this need to hide stuff outside of P4 written externs and functions does limit P4's useful as a complete specification and reference code language.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:56:31PM -0400, hemant@mnkcg.com wrote:
> > Why do you care for internal behavior of checksum when the P4 api is able to provide data to compute checksum.
> > 
> > https://github.com/p4lang/p4c/blob/main/p4include/v1model.p4#L505
> > 
> > Hemant
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Haoyu Song
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:30 PM
> > To: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de>; hemant@mnkcg.com
> > Cc: 'Hesham ElBakoury' <helbakoury@gmail.com>; ehalep@mojatatu.com; 
> > 'Bernier, Daniel' <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Marie-Jose Montpetit'
> > <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>; 'coinrg-chairs' 
> > <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> > 
> > Toerless,
> > 
> > This is exactly the problem: you can't use the core language to describe an arbitrary dataplane function. 
> > "Extern" can be a blackbox but what need is the spec for what's in the blackbox.
> > 
> > For P4 spec: " Extern objects are architecture-specific constructs that can be manipulated by P4 programs through well-defined APIs, but whose internal behavior is hard-wired (e.g., checksum units) and hence not programmable using P4"
> > 
> > Haoyu
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 12:15 PM
> > To: hemant@mnkcg.com
> > Cc: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>; 'Hesham ElBakoury' 
> > <helbakoury@gmail.com>; ehalep@mojatatu.com; 'Bernier, Daniel' 
> > <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; 'Marie-Jose Montpetit' 
> > <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; 'coin' <coin@irtf.org>; 'coinrg-chairs' 
> > <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> > 
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 02:19:12PM -0400, hemant@mnkcg.com wrote:
> > > A specific P4 architecture, e.g., PNA, may override the base P4 spec. PNA supports writing table entry by data plane. Using registers in P4 is a bit clunky but state can be maintained. Anyone is welcome to present a better solution to the P4 forums.
> > 
> > So far, my limited experience has been, that the language itself has rather evolved over its series of spec to further reduce the base language functionality and move any improvemenets into implementation extensions ("extern") calls, so that no possible hardware would not be able to not support any base language feature. 
> > 
> > This is a good strategy to gain more acceptance in the industry, but 
> > not to get to the easiest to use forwarding plane behavioral 
> > definition language
> > 
> > For exmple, i would need axtual syntactical language extensions to define a good way to parse andd deparsing variable length header fields. This can not just be done with extern calls.
> > 
> > Has P4 adopted the approach to have optional language feature extensions ?
> > Sorry. Did not have time to follow the spec evolution in detail.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> > > Hemant
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > From: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 1:56 PM
> > > To: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: ehalep@mojatatu.com; Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; 
> > > hemant=40mnkcg.com@dmarc.ietf.org <hemant@mnkcg.com>; Bernier, 
> > > Daniel <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>; Marie-Jose Montpetit 
> > > <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; coin <coin@irtf.org>; coinrg-chairs 
> > > <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Hi Hesham,
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Please see P4 spec section 6.5.2 for the current “stateful” support. 
> > > So far the “table” element, which is the most important construct 
> > > for a P4 program,  is not stateful (i.e., dataplane writable)
> > > 
> > > I think it’s a direction to extend P4 for better stateful support (part of my recent research). At least now it’s unnatural and difficult to describe many stateful functions.  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Haoyu
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org <mailto:coin-bounces@irtf.org> > 
> > > On Behalf Of Hesham ElBakoury
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 10:42 AM
> > > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com 
> > > <mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com> >
> > > Cc: ehalep@mojatatu.com <mailto:ehalep@mojatatu.com> ; Toerless 
> > > Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> >; 
> > > hemant=40mnkcg.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
> > > <mailto:hemant=40mnkcg.com@dmarc.ietf.org> ; Bernier, Daniel 
> > > <daniel.bernier@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.bernier@bell.ca> >; 
> > > Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com 
> > > <mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com> >; coin <coin@irtf.org 
> > > <mailto:coin@irtf.org> >; coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org 
> > > <mailto:coinrg-chairs@ietf.org> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Hi Haoyu,
> > > 
> > > Actually, P4 supports dataplane-modifiable tables -- see PNA.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > More generally, the *language* is fully extensible. You can have whatever architecture and state externs you want. So one needs to be careful to separate language (non) limitations from target limitations.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Hesham
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2023, 10:15 AM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com <mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Hesham,
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > I said “it’s very limited”. P4 table is only readable (i.e., not writable) by dataplane, so it basically eliminates any dataplane stateful function that need to use tables. The stateful function can only use register arrays but unfortunately registers are local to a pipeline stage so the state update logic must be very simple and can be finish in a single stage. What you said “event” must be something very simple. Use case such as stateful load balancer can’t be implemented by P4.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > There are some works addressing the issue. FlowBlaze is the most recent one, which needs a new chip architecture but it is still limited to simple stateful functions which can be realized in a single pipeline stage. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Haoyu
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > From: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com 
> > > <mailto:helbakoury@gmail.com> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 10:00 AM
> > > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com 
> > > <mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com> >
> > > Cc: ehalep@mojatatu.com <mailto:ehalep@mojatatu.com> ; Toerless 
> > > Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> >; 
> > > hemant=40mnkcg.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
> > > <mailto:40mnkcg.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > > ; Bernier, Daniel <daniel.bernier@bell.ca 
> > > <mailto:daniel.bernier@bell.ca> >; Marie-Jose Montpetit 
> > > <marie@mjmontpetit.com <mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com> >; coin 
> > > <coin@irtf.org <mailto:coin@irtf.org> >; coinrg-chairs 
> > > <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:coinrg-chairs@ietf.org> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Coin] Fwd: The Future of P4, Revisited
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Hi Haoyu,
> > > 
> > > You say: "P4 has very limited support for stateful processing"
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > I am not sure I can agree with your characterization of P4. Perhaps can you elaborate on this.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > Hesham
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2023, 9:19 AM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com <mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Interesting discussion. See my comments below  [HS]
> > > 
> > > Haoyu
> > > 
> > > > For example, in the multicast drafts i write, we use 
> > > > C-pseudocode to specify behavior, but we do attempt to implemnt on Tofino in P4.
> > > > Should we really use P4 code for the RFC specs... ? (much longer 
> > > > than C Pseudocode). Aka: quite selfish (but IETF relevant ;-) reason to highlight this point.
> > > 
> > > [EH]: This is an area I'm very interested in. Having a standardized and formal language to describe protocols and behavior can bring a lot of functionality and benefits to the IETF. 
> > > My initial thinking is that having such a blueprint, the IETF could generate tools to create a reference implementation that can be used for interoperability purposes therefore decreasing time to test and implement protocols and therefore RFC publications.
> > > 
> > > [HS] P4 can only describe dataplane behaviors, so any control plane stuff is out of scope. For dataplane, if it's used to describe header format, it's not better than the "struct" in C. The language uses the match-action table abstraction with an implication of pipeline implementation which may make it cumbersome or even impossible to describe the  behavior (e.g.,  P4 has very limited support for stateful processing). In general, I don't think P4 at its current form can undertake the role for formal protocol specification. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > ---
> > tte@cs.fau.de
> > --
> > Coin mailing list
> > Coin@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin

--
---
tte@cs.fau.de