Re: [ippm] [tsvwg] New Internet Draft: Congestion Signaling (CSIG)

Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> Sat, 10 February 2024 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <nanditad@google.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 6E235C14F5F4 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D_KhMZYgOcqu for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D6FC14F5F1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5115f93fe57so6824e87.0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:53:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1707548009; x=1708152809; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nNVlgTrWIZZOQ8LSOQrWRTYuMniXviTofNKo29b3MvY=; b=o3owZvA8UGjINItekqqtNr+KE848xAhWl8Y2gri5qs9liNFKNtjbbUqBVz+aqdwiaK XP4NjKYoashe7oa9vvsM+whhv+6Gs/9BkGLKNlvy8YNn0udi0qnrmDY3uZAfPH6Z3652 LKOr87YNTeznAA0SsoFuPS/7dbicczcXKbuWn9PGCIvmXF4IEbftKjRzYyRTPw59cLGM V8zwEbD6E4zgEPeEDY7bzt8vSSVK2AHEBOltyPABhDx9awpVD7tleCoghU0EczXz7APZ AjQiV4hNHu4yIxFw9g+UvaqJeRht5qn6RpYw1yu7borizaCMUGtKkIv0+CzorKFlIR+s JvEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707548009; x=1708152809; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=nNVlgTrWIZZOQ8LSOQrWRTYuMniXviTofNKo29b3MvY=; b=Lrbeb6sZVvpeFX6V/Cr3Np3bK+LT/yqNMw/Nq6cA2HXveoYeBGjkB9yIivl06ni4Qm 2Ub15IE6cDfGrdzhVO2N9wyH6YVaP4r8WFHBXNIE2WYbgN3dU7KXBRRNUqmlICYM+4Ko aC8BspwVw4pTiUKMAVRwDNL8WHsZOm+bzol1YY87fmaZOCx4zvoOypncZTJYB4GPIGXb KFn5c/SxjpCcZFEHJ98fRP+ha7XO+h6xQugJ9+S294VAQ0Clh/YwAQdunbMpplb8a4ss NU1VkPhPoigprhvJewUZT0TqvCmSrajspcD8KJC68/kd35GXKqsU1oFopiPXhw1hJ3eK EsXQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWJVyu1vEFvmzORw286BeBj/IQ4zCTVDFZypDKCk2/flC3ee+YJUNQGpHPybHvovYXxVsJWufzx4QsDcS27
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyayte18gTBPXIdHrFRf5UOzdflxCJEC3Ft9ErP4TMTY38CuSPX yi4JVrKHYDWeDgYS9lU4QE8Dr0ExsFYGXNGXJgf6ER2Y3NjAEqvERwYNWtENfwbIf6x8RTzpAXH Sce2IkFIEb67GEo7Wd1ARV2oIXcVEv2Lifw4e
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHe1rcNT7iGKy7nZBjirbFzF0g0HBLLqwZQVAyjZm9xoywAhq9AraLCVwyoJJho3o13R5iL7UKQDeJXRZBUZAQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4c3b:0:b0:511:4a7c:51aa with SMTP id u27-20020ac24c3b000000b005114a7c51aamr25971lfq.6.1707548009135; Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:53:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF0+TDD+44TAHf7y05GzmCgbau66ey7AU2RaVroim_Tukf=7nQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35V8xyDBkN0m8kDEcNk0N734Fqq0Ne8ZJ284ZnSSUwV9w@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35XNyBe5=gh7JpaCKEkiXaEwPGHrDZe=E-EPkiF5mUCLA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35XNyBe5=gh7JpaCKEkiXaEwPGHrDZe=E-EPkiF5mUCLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:53:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAB_+Fg5McYXt=M5MNkuxHrKrXQgZMS6PLRoVeUKiSUe5Qb7LjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Abhiram Ravi <abhiramr=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, ccwg@ietf.org, iccrg@irtf.org, Naoshad Mehta <naoshad@google.com>, Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086297306110180f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/1pkyI1tdn9HkE8KtYh16REwCXIg>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [tsvwg] New Internet Draft: Congestion Signaling (CSIG)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 06:53:35 -0000

Hi Tom,

We updated the draft, correcting some nit errata, and to not let the draft
expire. It's not discussed in any other mailing lists.

Nandita

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:53 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed there is now an -01 version of the draft posted on Feb. 2.
> Is this draft being discussed on some other list?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 9:09 AM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, thanks for draft!
> >
> > The first thing that stands out to me is the carrier of the new packet
> headers. In the forward path it would be in L2 and in reflection it would
> be L4. As the draft describes, this would entail having to support the
> protocol in multiple L2 and multiple L4 protocols-- that's going to be a
> pretty big lift! Also, L2 is not really an end-to-end protocol (would
> legacy switches in the path also forward the header)l?).
> >
> > The signaling being described in the draft is network layer information,
> and hence IMO should be conveyed in network layer headers. That's is L3
> which conveniently is the average of L2+L4 :-)
> >
> > IMO, the proper carrier of the signal data is Hop-by-Hop Options. This
> is end-to-end and allows modification of data in-flight. The typical
> concern with Hop-by-Hop Options is high drop rates on the Internet, however
> in this case the protocol is explicitly confined to a limited domain so I
> don't see that as a blocking issue for this use case.
> >
> > The information being carried seems very similar to that of IOAM (IOAM
> uses Hop-by-Hop Options and supports reflection). I suppose the differences
> are that this protocol is meant to be consumed by the transport Layer and
> the data is a condensed summary of path characteristics. IOAM seems pretty
> extensible, so maybe it could be adapted to carry the signals of this draft?
> >
> > A related proposal might be FAST draft-herbert-fast. Where the CSIG is
> network to host signaling, FAST is host to network signaling for the
> purposes of requesting network services. These might be complementary and
> options for both may be in the same packet. FAST also uses reflection, so
> we might be able to leverage some common implementation at a destination.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, 7:43 PM Abhiram Ravi <abhiramr=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi IPPM folks,
> >>
> >> I am pleased to announce the publication of a new internet draft,
> Congestion Signaling (CSIG):
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ravi-ippm-csig/
> >>
> >> CSIG is a new end-to-end packet header mechanism for in-band signaling
> that is simple, efficient, deployable, and grounded in concrete use cases
> of congestion control, traffic management, and network debuggability. We
> believe that CSIG is an important new protocol that builds on top of
> existing in-band network telemetry protocols.
> >>
> >> We encourage you to read the CSIG draft and provide your feedback and
> comments. We have also cc'd the TSVWG, CCWG, and ICCRG mailing lists, as we
> believe that this work may be of interest to their members as well.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your time and consideration.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Abhiram Ravi
> >> On behalf of the CSIG authors
>