IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dyncast] CAN BoF issues and the next steps

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 13 April 2022 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827E93A1A62 for <dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5wfE4A_pmodl for <dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76B53A1A57 for <dyncast@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 82A681C071F; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:52:33 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Luigi IANNONE' <luigi.iannone=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, liupengyjy@chinamobile.com, 'dyncast' <dyncast@ietf.org>
References: <2022041114360459722023@chinamobile.com> <29752325-4d93-271d-a0f1-e874575dca9b@joelhalpern.com> <2022041122304706741797@chinamobile.com> <5c189bc0-0569-e2f9-54b3-1bb41335ae21@joelhalpern.com> <008f01d84e13$8b5db8f0$a2192ad0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <d8fd1f2624b743698ed7b9ba390299f3@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8fd1f2624b743698ed7b9ba390299f3@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:52:31 +0800
Message-ID: <00ed01d84ee1$859b5f70$90d21e50$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJGVzA0Yxf+M+2+/RAcRvlMJ/40mQGSe30ZAo9DL+wDOCcTDAF7fG13AvJz48CrstTcQA==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZCBgUCR5ZQVlLVUtZV1 kWDxoPAgseWUFZKDYvK1lXWShZQUpMS0tKN1dZLVlBSVdZDwkaFQgSH1lBWRpDH01WT08eSkhPGh 5IQhpJVRMBExYaEhckFA4PWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKSktITUpVS1kG
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MxA6NAw*GD02UT8UIko4Hk0O F0IaCjhVSlVKTU9CQ0pDSE5IQklIVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUhPSkI3Bg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a8020d63ffcd993kuws82a681c071f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dyncast/GNqm-a7xpZI_qCIYQaGKPiBv-6M>
Subject: Re: [Dyncast] CAN BoF issues and the next steps
X-BeenThere: dyncast@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Anycast <dyncast.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dyncast>, <mailto:dyncast-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dyncast/>
List-Post: <mailto:dyncast@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dyncast-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dyncast>, <mailto:dyncast-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 02:52:44 -0000

Hi, Luigi:
Why only the ingress need such decision? I think all the routers in-path
need such information(routing metric +compute metric), to achieve the
optimal "instance selection".

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: dyncast-bounces@ietf.org <dyncast-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Luigi
IANNONE
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:04 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>; 'Joel M. Halpern'
<jmh@joelhalpern.com>; liupengyjy@chinamobile.com; 'dyncast'
<dyncast@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dyncast] CAN BoF issues and the next steps

Hi,

> But, with the placement of the ANYCAST application servers closing to 
> the users in different sites, the bottleneck to influence the E2E 
> application performance is not only the network metric, the metric for 
> the application servers play a major role now.
> It is time to consider both the network metric and application server 
> metric together to achieve such goals.

I think that Joel is not against the above (routing metric +compute metric =
instance selection).
I think that he is more inline with Dirk's position, meaning that it is not
necessarily the routing layer that has to be "enhanced" with compute
metrics. 
Rather, an in-path decision based on both metrics should be made by some
(CAN ) element.
My personal take is that the ingress is well suited for that (since for sure
it is in-path).    
Then you have the choice of various ways on how to steer the traffic.

Ciao

L.




--
Dyncast mailing list
Dyncast@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dyncast

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email