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

Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 07:31 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 CDEF7130ECF for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:31:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vD3U86WsqD6D for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:31:16 -0800 (PST)
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 34C01130ECE for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 79E84640D8E39A1893B9 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:31:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:31:12 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:31:00 +0800
From: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com>
To: "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: AdTT7nuw3UhjEqAQT2m5hfIrSI7duA==
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:31:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677D3E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.176.239]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677D3ENKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/kHaZ60gO6gDIAGSPLmOqVnieQ_k>
Subject: [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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:31:19 -0000

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>
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

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dang-ippm-congestion/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion





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