IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com> Tue, 12 April 2022 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>
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 4BDC93A10B3 for <dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 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] 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 GHR_2CmLRs1F for <dyncast@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2873A10AD for <dyncast@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KcxVk0K1jz67bbZ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:02:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhreml743-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.193) by fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.216) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:04:25 +0200
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.187) by lhreml743-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.193) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:04:24 +0100
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.108.187]) by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.108.187]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:04:24 +0100
From: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "liupengyjy@chinamobile.com" <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>, 'dyncast' <dyncast@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dyncast] CAN BoF issues and the next steps
Thread-Index: AQHYTW3xnVNpsK0HWkKBJh9YjDS+76zql24AgAAuOT7///GIgIAAxEeAgABe92A=
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <d8fd1f2624b743698ed7b9ba390299f3@huawei.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <008f01d84e13$8b5db8f0$a2192ad0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.67.113]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dyncast/tx4ZdeV1Iy68NEv8lYQOJUNEWxA>
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:04:32 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email