Re: [Dclc] Agenda topics

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Mon, 27 October 2014 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.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 6B0AE1A87A5 for <dclc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RtuvnLNdZiGR for <dclc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-by-04.bt.com (hubrelay-by-04.bt.com [62.7.242.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6421F1A86F7 for <dclc@irtf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) by EVMHR04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:55:57 +0000
Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:50 +0000
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:49 +0000
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.38.168]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s9RNsmZM017287; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:48 GMT
Message-ID: <201410272354.s9RNsmZM017287@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:54:47 +0000
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com>
References: <D8EC17A9-A105-484F-B36F-7806A1A80D48@cisco.com> <C5C3BB522B1DDF478AA09545169155B46D842B70@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1903A114-C834-472D-9AA3-52983FE8972D@netapp.com> <CD5957AA-B604-4BBC-8F5E-404585FA2C5E@cisco.com> <201410272233.s9RMXm8h017085@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <0967E67B-0135-4709-B94D-B189B3028D8B@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dclc/hXbc19QCpS7t_bWcGuzh_oPeXaE
Cc: Weixinpeng <weixinpeng@huawei.com>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.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 23:55:09 -0000

Fred,

At 23:34 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

>On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > Fred, Lars,
> >
> > This is the same technique, but applied to a data centre by 
> implementing the tunnel endpoints in the hypervisors:
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-conex-data-centre-02>
> >
> > It's the one I had prepared a presentation for in the last dclc 
> mtg, but I gave up the slot so we had longer to discuss the 
> direction of the group.
> > 
> <http://www.bobbriscoe.net/presents/1407ietf/1407dc-congestion-policing.pdf>
> > (I'd be happy to present it this time - perhaps in conjunction 
> with Xinpeng if you establish that it will be relevant to data centres)
>
>Maybe the two discussions. I agree that a vSwitch or hypervisor can 
>be the tunnel endpoint, and RFC 2983 tells us how to manage the CU 
>flags between the two IP headers. The question in my mind is how 
>that interacts with latency.

I can't answer for Xinpeng, but in my case there's a congestion 
policer in each ingress hypervisor and the fill rates of all the 
tenants' token buckets (in units of ECN marks) bounds the growth of 
the FIFO AQM queue that all tenants share. This policer focuses drop 
on any tenant(s) that would otherwise cause heavier congestion, but 
it isolates all the other tenants from any queuing beyond the configured bound.

The pathetic part is I can't give any results, at least not in a data 
centre scenario.


Bob


>Where things stand right now, this is likely to be our entire 
>agenda. There is some work from KAIST and RedHat/Morgan Stanley that 
>I would have liked to see discussed, and they want to delay until March.
>
>I'll post an agenda showing the two discussions. Happy to have 
>discussion from the floor as well.
>
> > And, to respond to Toby's IPR point, back in 2005 BT declared its 
> IPR related to this, and updated the declaration in 2012, including 
> royalty-free terms under the conditions specified here:
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/>
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > At 15:39 27/10/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> >> Content-Language: en-US
> >> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
> >>        boundary="Apple-Mail=_44D5A9BE-946A-4C98-96DA-75F726FDCBE8";
> >>        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
> >>
> >>
> >> 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".
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dclc mailing list
> >> Dclc@irtf.org
> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dclc
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT