Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 04 March 2021 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1440C3A1768 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:24:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=raszuk.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 gkv1cht_Yx7n for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:24:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2B53A1767 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id q25so21799434lfc.8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 01:24:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YKGvkuomIPHRIbz173IvxIaCIWIJlSWqshIv4DqVxgc=; b=D6V8gJOUQDQ4aQGmaxf9eqTGwwDA9mXKnBx4iwcWPRvJ/txfPeoVLh3HLvAljWxAUW ZZYhyN6M7MFQAOH34KLRsPcPiOxjISHMdhdfA121inv3ki4l0QRGpw18RTXf98j7QcZL mMEINu00X931YQA6KRjo2w96gIbfNI6paUTyEG6WAtdZlicWK5vojdrPAYwGvYtpxjsn 3BCEEOhjzyzwBwoG7BdoMPhKY/VrpHvSiIji+71gEQ+7+Mu+yg7ouIV30eZOJ4+iYTD2 DTzZgVFkumwU5XiWXoAsQE+hGMpR1gXnUZc05bGIdwRNGqnBmsRb93+4pU0yu8J4fBrP E0TA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YKGvkuomIPHRIbz173IvxIaCIWIJlSWqshIv4DqVxgc=; b=V6mWq9e3ECqTyE5md93FilJgvRgsn50VO7krjxDitsBAhg1LDOq4gpK9gP4XKkn7nX dAkGEdVs71qSbpSDyXnH7ZBppnaHY/urNWhTEJRqIcpXu0JdoHWXNBHVabS8M9hO9MS/ wI5Do8qASuXu98o1ldrOIEAa5QK/dyOqf2uiTCD56cwHRDfVnMd92S00flA9vO06vEOy KsUDhzj2g0Z2ZFdP4KraPREgkjGjFrNLaGNrllRNlpZulXqIXRQNUKQcKix8H/3HPFIK l7+RS0wlO10EhnFLf3j2xypYas4pvFww9FfKSvFR6346uZ4ULcq0ms2SNe47UKO+vI7t H+/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305z/VRnnaifhoD8L2D561qiY2EwOEeJn8o2RSGqa4JW3Nr2c1/ Gu0wsgFtORwZJ0cEJvTSX++5wF3rtNNOllWVADuO4A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzue8mg7gH8J4fz0LvKLO8uS99n2nUydJlq0WYu+JijpIHHnSgvU4XT0EcumJ7zr1u/1VRguHP3hNVCfmYaB5M=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:d8:: with SMTP id 207mr1386601lfa.602.1614849843309; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 01:24:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161401476623.19237.3808413288895066510@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR0501MB380079CFD75C78610130D81BCD9D9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHKazMG3wnUA+Kd2wg2hfr01CdF5w5YYKdFaHU4_V+0SA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0UKB=HaMs9eLvvp4fVLPsEtJhQ2xFmwY80sqBNDFRudQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR0501MB38006C4B638AD2AB6A7731B5CD9A9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7C67D01F-24DB-4450-8587-E004CAFBBEBC@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGZppwYtNr4t0rJoy3BKWaBYqHiJ_esM1XNFTNxbm8c5w@mail.gmail.com> <08882555-009B-4068-ABB0-20B0D165D722@tony.li> <2c2605a8-95c6-a477-b1b5-5ae4d4de222a@cisco.com> <52B3A5ED-6ACC-4772-BEF7-085A33A53F31@tony.li> <e5190522-3a8b-2d6e-c2fe-646049689cc4@cisco.com> <1EABA651-2F05-415B-97EF-054507FADEAC@tony.li> <f935dbc4-6220-5f47-65a4-f642823f594f@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMHXd5j8B9a13E90HQVB=SUOkQ=fqhyJEgTf-Y7Tp5eiBQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d66e5af-414a-42b7-6af5-388974785b8f@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d66e5af-414a-42b7-6af5-388974785b8f@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:23:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGggyuzqD=ZbDxNG_10ThHykOO7y5rYWphvSk0rs+4CbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046c18405bcb287b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/57JWhG8dAfpnIKTD0HdbWOTmG3E>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 09:24:08 -0000

Peter,

Completely disagree.

Real say enterprise networks are being build with emulated circuits
(example VPWS). In one company I was working at it was about 80% of
emulated links all over the world in their WAN. Yes for me it was a shock
as I did not realize how much this emulated links took over the world. In
most geographies you even can not get any link of less then 10Gbps to be
real any more. Only emulated option is on the table.

Emulated circuits run over someone's IP backbones. You can understand the
consequences of this. Not only link delay changes a lot but you run into
very interesting set of issues.

Maybe you think of the backbones of the 90s or 2000s where dark fiber or
SDH or SONET were in use for interconnects.

Well no more. IETF came with such brilliant ideas to emulate L2 over L3 and
here we go.

Reality is not what we wish it to be.

Cheers,
R.


On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:07 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> On 03/03/2021 20:57, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> >  >  that differ by few microsecond
> >
> > Really you normalize only single digit microseconds ???
> >
> > What if link delay changes in milliseconds scale ? Do you want to
> > compute new topology every few milliseconds ?
>
> let me repeat again.
>
> Min delay is not something that changes every few milliseconds
> significantly. It's a semi static variable that reflects the property of
> the underlying physical path. It only changes when the physical path
> properties changes - e.g. the optical path reroutes, etc. We
> deliberately picked Min delay for flex-algo purposes for this semi
> static property.
>
> The small, non significant changes can be filtered by the normalization.
>
> If the min delay changes significantly every few milliseconds there's
> something wrong with the link itself - we have standard dampening
> mechanisms in LS protocols to deal with unstable links that would kick
> in. Similar to what we do if the link flaps every few milliseconds.
>
> >
> > Out of curiosity as this is not a secret -  What are your default min
> > delay normalization timers (if user does not overwrite with their own).
>
> there is no timer needed for the normalization itself.
>
> You are likely referring TWAMP computation interval which is 30 sec,
> with probes being sent every 3 seconds in our implementation by default,
> if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Normalization is applied to the value that come from the above.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>
> > Likewise how Junos or Arista normalizes it today ?
> >
> > Thx,
> > R.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com
> > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Tony,
> >
> >     On 03/03/2021 19:14, Tony Li wrote:
> >      >
> >      > Peter,
> >      >
> >      >>> There are several link types in use that exhibit variable
> >     delay: satellite links (e.g., Starlink), microwave links, and
> >     ancient link layers that deliver reliability through retransmission.
> >      >>> Any of these (and probably a lot more) can create a noticeable
> >     and measurable difference in TWAMP. That would be reflected in an FA
> >     metric change. If you imagine a situation with multiiple parallel
> >     paths with nearly identical delays, you can easily imagine an
> >     oscillatory scenario.   IMHO, this is an outstanding concern with FA.
> >      >> yes, and that is what I referred to as "delay normalization",
> >     which can avoid that oscillation.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > It can also negate the benefits of the feature. One might well
> >     imagine that Starlink would want to follow a min-delay path for
> >     optimality.  If the delay variations are “normalized” out of
> >     existence, then the benefits are lost.  The whole point is to track
> >     the dynamics.
> >
> >     for all practical purposes that we use it for, the two values of min
> >     delay that differ by few microsecond can be treated as same without
> any
> >     loss of functionality. So it's about the required normalization
> >     interval
> >     - something that can be controlled by the user.
> >
> >     thanks,
> >     Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >>> Please note that I’m NOT recommending that we back away.
> >     Rather, we should seek to solve the long-standing issue of
> >     oscillatory routing.
> >      >>
> >      >> not that I disagree. History tells us that the generic case of
> >     oscillation which is caused by the traffic itself is a hard problem
> >     to solve.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > Any oscillation is difficult to solve.  Positive feedback
> >     certainly can exacerbate the problem. But solving hard problems is
> >     why we are here.
> >      >
> >      > Yours in control theory,
> >      > Tony
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >
>
>