Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

"Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 31 August 2012 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C1A11E80DE for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJxhHxTk0YjC for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5321F21F8437 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q7V33V23014709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:03:34 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q7V33Tek032235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:33:29 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:33:29 +0530
From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:33:25 +0530
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac2HFlCnCfzbgxASS5aVj7nq08yZ3gADkuDA
Message-ID: <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C8B2@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C89F@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CACKN6JF_tfjKY7aYEceES9D-LjYBh8KB0OUsjCuy-0jGTMvUhQ@mail.gmail.com> <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C8AD@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CACKN6JFCkLwCazKeQU_RLD4TAEHEhaU10rDEUNKTcKeaGZTyeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACKN6JFCkLwCazKeQU_RLD4TAEHEhaU10rDEUNKTcKeaGZTyeA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C8B2INBANSXCHMBSA_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:03:46 -0000

I can understand about very specialized use cases in closed environments but IMO, too much emphasis has been given
on power of central compute but still has to deal with "unfriendly" routers for FIB convergence and synchronization..on
theory, yes there is absolutely no problem for real-time applications :).

________________________________
From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16 PM
To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Cc: Alia Atlas; UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Yep;  not having to run an IGP on the box, which is great for those people not wanting / needing core internet protocols on their devices.  The standard set of 'SDN' talking appoints applies here in terms of development speed, performance improvements resulting from use of modern commodity compute, friendliness of development environment, potential for decreased bug count* etc etc.

It's a specialized use case, but it exists.

However, my fundamental point is that with IRS as defined currently (ie PBR with extensible match fields on on RIB recursion + additional monitoring and data collection hooks) you can do hypothetically do away with IGPs.  Indeed, assuming that the encaps is applied at some other device (since IRS as currently described doesn't account for encap/decap application or negotiation functionality)  you can effectively replace a significant number of protocols (including stateful PCE) should you want to.   :P

<can of worms>

*The benefits in terms of decreased bug counts above is really varies with how complex we make IRS of course.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Yep, the context of our original discussion was never PCE as we understand its CSPF or some form like that. Our concern was - is there a strong use
case for non-constrained SPF?

________________________________
From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:34 PM

To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Cc: Alia Atlas; UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Nope, not specifically, but it strongly implies that there is some form of SPF running given the use of constraints in the draft.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
That doesn't talk about centralized SPF, does it ?

________________________________
From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:12 PM

To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Cc: Alia Atlas; UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-01
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
'operational model' = IETF draft that describes the use case.
'large' = 40K LSAs, 500 IGP nodes.

________________________________
From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:44 PM

To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Cc: Alia Atlas; UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

please define 'operational model' ( and 'large' :) .
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Hi,
         I believe that's 10% of what overall work that router does today w.r.t routing. I would like to see an operational model how such centralized SPF can
provide end-to-end convergence of large number of flows efficiently.

Thanks,
Pranjal

________________________________
From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Alia Atlas
Cc: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Alia;

If there is

a) a mechanism for installing routes, pbr or otherwise, which recurse to directly connected nexthops
b) a mechanism for gathering topological information

then you've inherently enabled centralized spf.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
I haven't seen a good description of what is intended or desired by
moving the SPF functionality to a centralized location.  Clearly such
centralization can have a very bad impact on convergence - which is a
strong motivator for simultaneously computing fast-reroute
alternatives (with guaranteed coverage ala MRT) and installing both.

I don't see IRS as having a way of "turning off" the SPF computation
in the IGP; a different lobotomized IGP protocol/process would be
needed.

Alia

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
<pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
> "LSDB (I saw an email which talks about reducing IGP to link
>> distribution protocol and running SPF in centralized network
>> controller)"
>
> I have seen discussions in the past on this and in fact I didn't get precisely what is meant. If anybody in the list could brief very
> precisely that would help a lot.
>
> Here is my understanding - the routers would do LSA/LSP flooding for OSPF/ISIS as it is done today. So routers would build neighboring relationship/adjacencies to participate in flooding and each router builds its LSDB.
>
> Then the IRS "application" would track LSDB changes and pull up the "diffs" from each router (thru "controller") whenever there is a change. The application would compute SPF on behalf of each router (LSDB). The result of the compute would be pushed by application to each Router (thru controller) and inject entries into RIB.
>
> Is that correct? How different this going to be from PCE?
>
> If this is correct then perhaps we would like to ask what are the scalability numbers in LSDB we are talking about?
>
> The "application" would be running in a high performance server and so SPF compute there is not an issue and perhaps it is good way to synchronize FIB update (to a certain extent) to avoid u-loops etc.
>
> But when we are managing all routers in the purview of the application, the computing power in each router is not uniform. To be realistic, I have some concerns on how much "real-timeness" we could achieve between application and controllers on such proposals, esp. when scaling numbers are high. This leads to higher time lag on inconsistency between application SPF compute and FIB update. It's almost like the classic "slow peering" issues with TCP like protocols - the high performance peer is slowed down by low performance peer.
>
> Static route interface is good thing because it is a state that persists longer.
>
> IGPs may be deployed in very dynamic environments where tight coupling is desirable between SPF compute and FIB update. In scaled environments the issue is less about SPF compute time and is more about synchronizing the FIB.
>
> Running on-demand CSPF by IRS application may be fine because of persistency of RSVP-TE tunnels in dynamic environments.
>
> I apologize if I misunderstood the intent.
>
> Thanks,
> Pranjal
---snip---
_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss