Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 19 September 2019 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18281200B2; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 8Iq0koKEZAvC; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 09FA012008A; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x8J1xmjY029976; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:03:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=ZTWC4Lhcu4bOjk/ONQ325X9QMzeuv/7rlht9IfJlxP0=; b=0TT7O9jxNYZhPAy5A1/COKR527NDMUVpzVHik8aVfw6YVb6ww1Gs+/DUnV7hkj2cCaWr PooqKjhpa+RMWtaar9I0mxzZogLwIYBRVPa6a70+JywydNYMGoJPFKOt4Zp5qe1uvCu4 5e0PeDmP8NEABQkT6tTGdPXaBS+LWC5PR2Hj/6nF68yuUznQbz1IggZDW3DpVxCHlRBT KBD+GVjnA60fn8AoumhSgEuVc5RszjT7UaWSkWuCN98cKK6966AiS6dTInQtt5+CT3Xb f7oTZXwn65bTqvDYvKrlAxqNXVqdiVNaxmjN7oUNU2geRuMD07TyUp3mrDbNRONkvNeU ug==
Received: from nam04-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam04lp2051.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.44.51]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2v3vcj8bwg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:03:22 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=bM+EYKCmw3K8yec/CLsQ3nK2hoJdQHGAMrpGqqYTa9mveTyIKdPgmHIl9MAcdDTWvTvaLoidtYT2nhsfO6fZP167RMmBXjEYEosGl9jpeZV+fbriMBlVM1NvX4ZRD1eeXqHomlbYdDxL0rvI4QJll6XmAdH1kWk9F4jIXQe3wGClCBBTzC942Bn2HaiqLNrNzBVeqVItNFcJk++MBpVHjKTkEDIMnX0mdGg6NiVC1Nu1ewzllvJPoYXOHSPQYV4q52G665wbMhI+Eu6xiDp0jvB09YPnD+CIKk0tltmHNQwpGwc/70ti8KCeCsv3dELWW6Q2a4aSQB5vd0LuQ716ZQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ZTWC4Lhcu4bOjk/ONQ325X9QMzeuv/7rlht9IfJlxP0=; b=hKyXoHbRndlyMfyoqIBkMy4nkoPWVh7y3OaA4gzj49VaCXIP8NEpEGAjhju5cj7Mf39AomRj6C1+dFNDImtyqpE1bCr9iUJ6ntj95b8+sAsWWflT+G+jpW9i4yDFigt02K8m7sCMf6KVCXdWt7Fue/pK5Legu6akr5lrpzEQ+JSwuJaPbBLL2SuD40jCNJQBfd8oGOymjiny4uZrU8G3FrfsF6ZNweMwxhxJtIYq+795pcWXte0bjFOz612TFE2cdGVHyoHPI8qCYkRB5U0VuujTQ2VS2liLKmOVG9H5nBE20L71GnOw/e0Yb83VYgf01dzsMmNrwsZrgQkZqBj6fA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
Received: from BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.185.144) by BYAPR05MB5112.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.231.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2284.12; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:03:19 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f4f2:f284:d49a:890a]) by BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f4f2:f284:d49a:890a%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2284.009; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:03:19 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
CC: Dirk Steinberg <dirk@lapishills.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "xiechf@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
Thread-Topic: [spring] “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
Thread-Index: AQHVbM6iBD2vmdhhC0CHW2Z2/PIyC6cvDt0wgAJlHoCAACXNgIAAgXoAgAAOrgCAABlCSQ==
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:03:18 +0000
Message-ID: <52FDA21F-E860-45E2-846A-43B969DEDC87@juniper.net>
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54632F09C712ADB30138CFA9AEBE0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR19MB3415D21403394F8129A4BAD8FCB90@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <30491F13-C652-45C3-AB2B-95F765FBB4EA@juniper.net> <65C5CB04-3A2F-4F83-A7C8-2045154F93AE@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463EC3250F2A303A3641839AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <91CBADAD-EFE6-46E1-A9D3-DAA111357179@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGyUFRPDqCBo5SbLX486o_9GLpM6Zxf8KSt1voWiqhkGQ@mail.gmail.com> <E8D473B5-3E8D-4339-9A79-0CAE30750A55@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMFOy5PyTo=jPJkVrQOctdWjsTbD=7ix-2n89vodKzT3gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2F604D74-51CF-4F2F-AEA9-1CBDEEA9B9F7@gmail.com> <F09C2D09-D769-4817-AF73-97D6ED1BC4BF@lapishills.com> <201909120857387140042@chinatelecom.cn> <1568259664564.62561@bell.ca> <CAO42Z2wQ_8GEE+=nAMFBj+ape9Vf7fARVoOwGdCiUxdffkyXgw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463A04B05B4BD6AA294F7F0AEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6EA6F7C0-BEB2-4749-A6AB-62B1337213B2@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463426F1668202EE5F183EFAE8F0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <634900D2-FBCE-47CF-8907-C8B9CB3A4102@cisco.com> <CALx6S34=Tw-u4Hz-07-Rs-GjsungkqnD_fMoQnGc17u3VJhY1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqxzqYr7g2jzwJrhvjL_DXYZsDzbzqx01cy0zB1aBweDde1XQ@mail.gmail.com>, <CAO42Z2yrjwRMykWxmEo5=18fMvuZdMtuyz5g1p=8oSzp_ro9Vw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yrjwRMykWxmEo5=18fMvuZdMtuyz5g1p=8oSzp_ro9Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [107.77.226.215]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c9610c93-a6f5-4a08-694f-08d73ca58ab9
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600167)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB5112;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB5112:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB511294C6DB3EB146810CFEEAAE890@BYAPR05MB5112.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 016572D96D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(366004)(376002)(136003)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(51444003)(6436002)(2906002)(8936002)(256004)(91956017)(66066001)(186003)(7736002)(236005)(7416002)(54896002)(6512007)(446003)(486006)(6306002)(316002)(9886003)(54906003)(1411001)(66476007)(5660300002)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(6246003)(76116006)(66946007)(102836004)(6916009)(71200400001)(71190400001)(81166006)(14454004)(6486002)(2616005)(6116002)(76176011)(36756003)(86362001)(4326008)(966005)(606006)(6506007)(25786009)(53546011)(33656002)(66574012)(26005)(478600001)(99286004)(11346002)(81156014)(229853002)(476003)(3846002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB5112; H:BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: tI7XANGBnIRqE4UylVCaecd0B7BBAGFqfNZBMnq0nqTb2dNsriruQZXJrjCn5p0lptFfka3IRStcjAWdPb/JdZWNn9MAqiOYVD/CyIuTDEccRTu0Wb5IoXeJG9/AyQxTofW5E9lpCEF/jG9EmVSfs83BJfUQJ0U5XvoP9pdIH2UYJG24GzECUGE9f73/R7NecR1j3xSPGwTN089E6J2Cxy9umq4EyM+u5iw56CDp95e4jEj4h4wIYI9wY14eHKq7oXkDM8sZBtat+eqkE3sCrAav+sxiNVytdhPdjsQO+syZim0ffCHpE5mivzKBGn1gwgTbXbDMT+qJ8kNGjft36E0vZbldi6e+hEfA3mEqwzidUL77cYopxaBPN5hj4h/pS4kGnPsmbGOtAZe2BclpkkJD8xb8bjzp49jRf7T2yxg=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_52FDA21FE86045E2846A43B969DEDC87junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c9610c93-a6f5-4a08-694f-08d73ca58ab9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Sep 2019 02:03:18.8705 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Q4LzzIeWjT73zqKr5DuxvvOFmFmmMADZkHP/An6s18IRg2v5NaFOraHIwAZL4XjFYZCm+prAkZwJECEEC39PmA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB5112
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.70,1.0.8 definitions=2019-09-19_01:2019-09-18,2019-09-19 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1909190015
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fIeE8x2o1JRSE3dAAu_xD_vEoJ4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:03:38 -0000

If you want to push complexity to the edge, put it in a destination option that is processed at the edge.

Ron
Sent from my phone


On Sep 18, 2019, at 8:33 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 09:40 Dirk Steinberg, <dirk@lapishills.com<mailto:dirk@lapishills.com>> wrote:
SRv6 does not require TLV processing for normal forwarding (use case: SP core).

+1

The Internet scales because complexity is pushed towards the edges.


- Dirk

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:57 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com<mailto:tom@herbertland.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:42 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com<mailto:ddukes@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron.
>
> I summarized my argument as follows:
> "Regardless of ASIC capabilities there are two performance penalties you will not escape with PSSI+CRH+PPSI: TLV parsing and multiple lookups.”
>
> You’ve confirmed this additional overhead for "SRv6+".  Thanks.
>

Darren,

How does one escape the performance penalty of TLV processing in SRV6?

Tom


> You then say "So long as the ASIC can process enough packets per second to saturate the line cards, we are forwarding at full line rate."
>
> Yes this is true, but we can conclude: The complexity of "SRv6+" requires ASICs do much more work per packet vs SRv6.
>
> Thanks
>   Darren
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2019, at 9:59 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Darren,
>
> I think that your argument can be summarized as follows:
>
>
> SRv6 requires only two FIB searches
> SRv6+ requires 4 or more FIB searches
> Therefore, SRv6+ cannot possibly forward at line speed
>
>
> Have I summarized your argument correctly? If not, please set me straight. If so, please read on.
>
> First, SRv6+ never requires more than 4 FIB searches. The DOH that precedes the CRH contains, at most, one PSSI. Therefore SRv6+ requires four FIB searches, at most.
>
> Second, SRv6+ only requires 4 FIB searches the following case:
>
>
> The packet contains two instances of the DOH. (Most use-cases require only one.)
> The processing node is configured to process the PSSI. (Many ASIC-based devices, because of their role in the network, won’t support any per segment service instructions. This nodes will be configured to ignore the PSSI. That is why it is optional.)
>
>
> So, in most use-cases, SRv6+ requires only 3 FIB searches.
>
> So, you might now argue that:
>
>
> SRv6 requires only two FIB searches
> SRv6+ requires three and sometimes four FIB searches
> Therefore, SRv6+ cannot possibly forward at line speed
>
>
> Here, some slightly deeper thought might be required. A platform has two relevant resources:
>
>
> A route lookup ASIC, that can process some number of packets per second
> Some number of interfaces, that can forward some number of bits per second
>
>
> So long as the ASIC can process enough packets per second to saturate the line cards, we are forwarding at full line rate. So long as a platform has a sufficiently capable ASIC, it will be able to forward at line speed. But it’s a matter of how the platform is designed. If the ASIC is not sufficiently capable, of course, it will not forward at line speed.
>
> In your email, you say that I have been asked several times to report on the state of Juniper’s SRv6+ implementation. While I cannot provide details, you can assume that we wouldn’t be working on this if we thought that performance was going to be sub-optimal.
>
> You also suggest that Juniper’s is the only implementation. Are you sure that this is correct?
>
>                                                                                                                      Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com<mailto:ddukes@cisco.com>>
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 4:38 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>>
> Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>>; EXT - daniel.bernier@bell.ca<mailto:daniel.bernier@bell.ca> <daniel.bernier@bell.ca<mailto:daniel.bernier@bell.ca>>; xiechf@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; 6man <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>; Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com<mailto:robjs@google.com>>; Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>
> Subject: “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
>
> Hi Ron, I agree ASICs are always improving, indeed this is evident in the number of successful SRv6 deployments and multiple vendor implementations at line rate on merchant silicon, and multiple vendor ASICs.
>
> Is “SRv6+” (PSSI+CRH+PPSI) implemented and deployed at line rate?
> You’ve been asked this several times.  Since you’re the only implementor(?) and one operator is claiming deployment or testing, I am curious.
>
> Regardless of ASIC capabilities there are two performance penalties you will not escape with PSSI+CRH+PPSI: TLV parsing and multiple lookups.
>
> Requiring all segments in a CRH segment list to process an arbitrary length DOH+set of PSSI’s and other options is always very expensive.
> - It is expensive in SRAM as previously discussed in these threads.
> - It is expensive in parsing logic to know and process a set of TLVs in any ASIC or NP.
>
> Spreading PSSI, CRH, PPSI operations in multiple headers and multiple identifiers you now have multiple lookups at a node.
> 1 - lookup destination address
> 2 - lookup one or more PSSI and future destination options.
> 3 - lookup the CRH label or PPSI label.
> 4 - lookup new destination address
>
> Compare this with SRv6.
> 1 - lookup destination address
> 2 - lookup new destination address
>
> While ASICs are more capable and will continue to be more capable, these technical performance problems you introduce with PSSI+CRH+PPSI will not go away.
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf..org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!8WoA6RjC81c!X-RHqCoZCZWTzB70xws4pVNGLoV7EPYG3-F9MWDANjuba3eZop9nlFRTfNamKFBw$>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!X-RHqCoZCZWTzB70xws4pVNGLoV7EPYG3-F9MWDANjuba3eZop9nlFRTfPui4KSq$>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!8WoA6RjC81c!X-RHqCoZCZWTzB70xws4pVNGLoV7EPYG3-F9MWDANjuba3eZop9nlFRTfPui4KSq$>