Re: [ippm] About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Fri, 08 March 2019 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D9F1279AB for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 04:58:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.468, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 l71xNDMiFy7j for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 04:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 17DDA12797D for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 04:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x28CuhHF044688; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:58:15 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2r3jrb71cs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 08 Mar 2019 07:58:14 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x28CwDGb112457; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 06:58:13 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [135.46.181.158]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x28CwB04112400; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 06:58:11 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 0EA3C4005C2A; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:58:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id DD6784005C29; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:58:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x28CwACb010284; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 06:58:10 -0600
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x28Cw2YD010039; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 06:58:02 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04213E0AEA; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:58:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:57:32 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss
Thread-Index: AdTT7nuw3UhjEqAQT2m5hfIrSI7duABvvgbA
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:58:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6C001FAE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677D3E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677D3E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [94.135.162.234]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6C001FAEnjmtexg5researc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-08_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1031 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903080092
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/0F0sjgFkKRY29WM__qeSiFRX4gE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:58:25 -0000

Hi Joanna,

Your proposal sounds similar to parts of the current WG draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-route-03

particularly section 5 and higher (where I would relate
delay to congestion), although discovering
the Path Ensemble is the first step (earlier sections).

Please take a look at the “AURA” WG draft and comment.

thanks,
Al
(for the AURA co-authors)

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dangjuanna
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 2:31 AM
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

Hi  everyone,
Recently I have submitted the draft named draft-dang-ippm-congestion.
There are some questions I need to discuss with the experts.

Q1: Is path congestion required? Is this requirement strong?
  Import ServiceA Traffic to the path1
                  \
                   \
                   NodeA----------NodeN1----------NodeN2----------NodeB
                                 Figure: Path1
As figure Path1 is shown,
[Premise] Path1 is from Node A to NodeB. Path1 may be MPLS TE, SR TE Tunnel or VXLAN.
[Requirement] Get the congestion degree of Path1 in order to make sure the service experience.

Before, everyone was very concerned about the congestion of single device nodes. Along with the network development,we should pay more attention to the business perspective. Therefore, the path perspective of carrying the service is also required. I understand that the requirement for path congestion exists.

And I think this demand will become more and more important.

Q2: What is path congestion?
For the sake of explanation, I introduce a concept named Path Queue. The PathA Queue is activated if congestion occurs at any node along the Path1. Furthermore, when the PathA Queue is activated, it indicates that the path has been congested.


What do you think of it?
I am very happy and open to get everyone's thoughts.

Thank you,
Joanna

发件人: Dangjuanna
发送时间: 2019年3月4日 17:38
收件人: 'ippm@ietf.org' <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>
主题: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

Hi everyone,
I have submit a new individual draft named A One-Path Congestion Metric for IPPM.
Welcome to discuss.
Best wishes,

Joanna Dang

===============================================

A new version of I-D, draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Joanna Dang and posted to the IETF repository.



Name:               draft-dang-ippm-congestion

Revision:  00

Title:                  A One-Path Congestion Metric for IPPM

Document date:       2019-03-04

Group:               Individual Submission

Pages:               10

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00.txt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Ddang-2Dippm-2Dcongestion-2D00.txt&d=DwMFoQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=exkhZ59YMOdAl1AT9h6-LU4ANJmxljU9DMm2LQK8kfo&s=E_x2gKnItmjl9VuFNkNWQ1-CfncBwCR2D1hc94GkayM&e=>

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dang-ippm-congestion/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Ddang-2Dippm-2Dcongestion_&d=DwMFoQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=exkhZ59YMOdAl1AT9h6-LU4ANJmxljU9DMm2LQK8kfo&s=-ys-69SjqOJE-9lQMpKHbXH4HE99YKGxttzi50gknms&e=>

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Ddang-2Dippm-2Dcongestion-2D00&d=DwMFoQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=exkhZ59YMOdAl1AT9h6-LU4ANJmxljU9DMm2LQK8kfo&s=hxkSD1MJ-25fxiiLU0smIjx55XaaF_ybVYEfWS4hlok&e=>

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Ddang-2Dippm-2Dcongestion&d=DwMFoQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=exkhZ59YMOdAl1AT9h6-LU4ANJmxljU9DMm2LQK8kfo&s=ww_tStxieJflH150r-Jkv8mG2ypLC7l-2eTXnVdWHMI&e=>





Abstract:

   This memo defines a metric for one path congestion across Internet

   paths.  The traditional mode evaluates network congestion based on

   the bandwidth utilization of the link.  However, there is a lack of

   E2E path congestion that is truly service oriented.  So A Path

   Congestion Metric is required.









Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.



The IETF Secretariat