IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 27 October 2014 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dclc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052CD1A88A3 for <dclc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czGunGNArEiC for <dclc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296C91A88B2 for <dclc@irtf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2233; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414424385; x=1415633985; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/atepeR/XaBNLakxLTLxRpfp4LuzKwRbJ/0Jf+/BHt4=; b=ZKx4MPxNYZ666Aw2YUPy/bFm3ipzoT5+sIysr+AWTFDgEcIQKwFN7qGH YP1m+cARBAKHbY7v0FC6YSR7KPape2O4IZkP1Y3zLjW0oKyxwJWme3fwt ZwBHuPL7gEbRW6xw8erkCmwKGC4ANB8/w5xyueWEnv2SFwR2rzp8L/dMh 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFAGlmTlStJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATNPodLAoEcFgF9hAIBAQEDAXkFCwIBCBguMiUCBA4FDogqCQ3LUgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReRCAeDLYEeBZIHghCBUGiHEoExPIY6jgeDeGyBSIEDAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,796,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="90704324"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 15:39:44 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RFdiLH007529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:44 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.248]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:39:44 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dclc] Agenda topics
Thread-Index: AQHP8fw6kZ+B6LM4U0Om6u85UH2/fw==
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CD5957AA-B604-4BBC-8F5E-404585FA2C5E@cisco.com>
References: <D8EC17A9-A105-484F-B36F-7806A1A80D48@cisco.com> <C5C3BB522B1DDF478AA09545169155B46D842B70@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/BWXmVSJq44Tw3Fxtxb8qaaQGI6A
Cc: Weixinpeng <weixinpeng@huawei.com>, dclc <dclc@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics
X-BeenThere: dclc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Data Center Latency Control <dclc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dclc>, <mailto:dclc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dclc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dclc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dclc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc>, <mailto:dclc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:39:49 -0000

On Oct 27, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:

> Hi Xinpeng,
> 
> On 2014-10-27, at 09:21, Weixinpeng <weixinpeng@huawei.com> wrote:
>> It will be appreciated if there is a timeslot for me to show our work on tunnel-based congestion control. 
>> The following is a link to the document.
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback/ 
> 
> could you outline how this draft is related to latency control in datacenters? I read an earlier version and it seemed to be all about wide area networks?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars

I’m scratching my head as well. Lingli is a co-author, so maybe she can comment here.

The draft does mention NFV, which can be implemented across multiple data centers connected by a WAN, but if primarily implemented within a data center, and specifically mentions data centers. It also mentioned latency in passing, in the third paragraph of the section on 3GPP.

Where I’m scratching my head is figuring out what it’s actually trying to say. It explains NFV and that tunnels might be implemented in a vSwitch, which is true, and often the case in architectures such as OpenStack. It doesn’t seem to make obvious points about that such as are made in RFC 2983: when the tunnel is marked as having experienced congestion, that information needs to be reflected in the interior header at the tunnel endpoint. It talks quite a bit about IPFIX. I’m not sure I walked away with “so do this”.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email