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

Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dangjuanna@huawei.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 6A2F9130F50 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 04:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=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 3drvxsUzZwWZ for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 C39EC130F5C for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 04:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 94A6B8F45D12909221DA for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:55:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:55:53 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:55:47 +0800
From: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.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: AdTT7nuw3UhjEqAQT2m5hfIrSI7duABvvgbAAH5EKzAAFgmzUA==
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:55:47 +0000
Message-ID: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C669144C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677D3E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6C001FAE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.176.239]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C669144CNKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/fGOYPU8fd1_Lo4FkJxcOOX5B2vA>
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:56:00 -0000

Dear Morton,
I’m very happy to discuss with you.
I have read “AURA” WG draft carefully and made the detailed notes.
Certainly, We are all concerned about the measurement of the path. Especially  I am more concerned with the measurement indicators and measurement methods of path congestion.
“AURA” WG draft describe there is path congestion requirement.  Just right, I provided the idea of congestion measurement.
Do you agree with me? I guess you should be very interested at my approach.
I am looking forward your reply.

Regards,
Joanna

From: Dangjuanna
Sent: 2019年3月11日 9:16
To: 'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)' <acm@research.att.com>; ippm@ietf.org
Subject: RE: About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

Dear Morton,
Thank you for your reply.
Last weekend I have looked through your draft named draft-ietf-ippm-route-03.  I value your thoughts very much.
Indeed, some focus of our thinking is on the same place. On this point, I am very happy that you are also concerned about this point. My current focus is mainly on path congestion, in the scenario of equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) mode and unequal-cost multiple (UCMP) mode. First, I consider how to measure path congestion.
Next I will read the draft you suggested.  I will ask you in time if I have any questions.
If you have any good ideas or corrections, you are welcome to discuss more.

Best wishes,
Joanna

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acm@research.att.com]
Sent: 2019年3月8日 20:58
To: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com<mailto:dangjuanna@huawei.com>>; ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: About Path Congestion Concept, welcome to discuss//Re: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

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<mailto: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