Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

"Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 31 August 2012 01:01 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 37A3B11E80E1 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.852, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Yf2AYx5H-ae2 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEE211E80DE for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q7V11Lu0021455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:01:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q7V11Ir3008191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:31:18 +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 06:31:18 +0530
From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:31:15 +0530
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac2HEGOXv9CngsPeRhq6DZFdPJrq/wAA2ziA
Message-ID: <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C8AD@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C89F@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CACKN6JF_tfjKY7aYEceES9D-LjYBh8KB0OUsjCuy-0jGTMvUhQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACKN6JF_tfjKY7aYEceES9D-LjYBh8KB0OUsjCuy-0jGTMvUhQ@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_C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E13F0B8C8ADINBANSXCHMBSA_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
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 01:01:35 -0000

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]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:34 PM
To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Cc: Alia Atlas; UTTARO, JAMES; Shah, Himanshu; 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