[LOOPS] draft-li-tsvwg-loops-problem-opportunities-05 - why do traffic engineering at the overlay as well?

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Tue, 07 July 2020 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF793A0E4B for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 MFBs7vPQS4jJ for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3953A0E5B for <loops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MacBook-Pro.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E934A1B0014F for <loops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:28:38 +0100 (BST)
To: loops@ietf.org
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <dd240ea2-f1b7-28eb-00ad-bb037c764d4d@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 16:28:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/h3VzqbJFPC4bbOnO8Ins9UeawKs>
Subject: [LOOPS] draft-li-tsvwg-loops-problem-opportunities-05 - why do traffic engineering at the overlay as well?
X-BeenThere: loops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Local Optimizations on Path Segments <loops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/loops/>
List-Post: <mailto:loops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 15:28:44 -0000

I have a few quetsions about then problem draft:

Section 3.4 provides a use-case, which I would like to understand better:

“By continuously measuring the delay of path segments
    and use them as metrics for path selection, when the number of
    overlay nodes is sufficiently large, there is a high chance that a
    better path could be found".

- This seems in part to rely upon measuring and the choosing which 
“disjoint segments” to forward over. A previous discussion asked how 
this would operate when the network itself implemented methods such as 
BGP and ECMP to do some form of traffic engineerinfg, and whether this 
introduced additional level of automatic re-routing would in some way 
conflict?

- Is this decision within the network a good idea for stable oeprations? 
Is this a decision better made at the edge?

Gorry