Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding

Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
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 6A1C312011E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 v2EmLpYh-GYq for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 107AF120114 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id k8so21766631plt.3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KouvecJi3LgbEb9IEv30PTZE309kuWph8sXXXL5dUDE=; b=ukEzQBt0lVKBOw6xOUlnKkrEHACbVG4uZ7uDP/tyPVw76qDx8rvSosUqRujTAfMvcv jm7Xf0oK0xdMe0YOUkjAOX+8XGARLFTSCL2OAb/EPHn/lcq4WonR91vQjfL2THQQ3PRJ Gn0cZU1hnQjEFJkoFtw3b67KMxUD4LOTUmN4hmLRVFyrQv1H/om1HwzV8P0P/T31zJBY YHbF7tR2Xt2vWLV5PQExQOeF/2JBfMaw46ifT2MhsDfCvsAJj+Uvg43Gvs6vhASmq++P bUcNEgd1eFbyns0Ccsp+Na58lKct8iaiNk3dUp7x3FiBSxBOq+cokoYmw6okI3lHW4n0 n9Ew==
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=KouvecJi3LgbEb9IEv30PTZE309kuWph8sXXXL5dUDE=; b=STVp80D/sBhqBBGXHHL9053NF1iFMTs1EEsMfce3AMXS332lcUGAkk9uzuT+2uE9EB v25dPk8p7RnAcbbnbuaH/6SVwjH+HPgC4ohVTDLhndJ+GCjkxHOwLXdNL9ZK32DwqJ7f LUybpZ3I/Yv16yssao+dP013QDPJSi+xoMGdvMvmBg5QjezEIrksetiFlXYaP2W0sct7 ksFuF8K8lCDr9d8hcw8ZM61ct285A7S25FPI91H6GTBBrrFvwoyP7YIGYOy3dtulBfKQ RWSVJKKlIiG+16+CPdR28sg6rT3jqJyKMXqglk1Z8BKnrqjyxQNUDgRDeaUrmA5ygXjn Q7Zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWjdrC7jEBeRJRehLev/bU9C9XshxtpBTMdDBmSHD4vPA66NT5b ZQXrTum1YfWoVyWYxtReJ3aJCZEEGb21xh/3/j9sFdbgVj8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzTMHV+FIMvpgyExcbtXujx9rHWpFtNr81TG9SenJ1Q3KN/yGBwmCTKahNI0cz3YmIeTxN9DR5aSCujoDevnTM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:2ec5:: with SMTP id r63mr83753182plb.21.1563959246161; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMj-N0LdaNBapVNisWs6cbH6RsHiXd-EMg6vRvO_U+UQsYVvXw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMH02oUHtcJujparBVDo+-jS=WvYV50yVCgFsq=w=8BPMA@mail.gmail.com> <E2BBD860-327D-4601-9462-DB80CC0A4E13@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <E2BBD860-327D-4601-9462-DB80CC0A4E13@tony.li>
From: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:07:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=0fe9dnSBipr4FUR=p04Skb4UBgZNZnkWvqvXTAYJMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f8d96058e69a3fe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/E58Wpv3FsKM9LY0qJH0Qh061Pu4>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:07:28 -0000

Hi Tony,

> I am assuming that there is no link layer flow control.  I can’t recall
> working on a system that supports X.25 since about 1995, so I don’t think
> that’s a common use case today.
>

I was more thinking along the lines of leveraging IEEE 802.3x or 802.1Qbb
standard not necessarily suggest fancy X.25 or Frame Relay :)

 Henk proposed that we simply pick up TCP for this, but my concern with
> that is really about introducing a whole new dependency to the protocol.
> That’s a lot to chew.  Do we really need it all? I hope not.  Thus, Bruno’s
> original suggestion sparked my interest in doing something dynamic and
> simple.
>

The second part of the question was really about at what layer it makes
most sense to provide this control loop.

Options seems to be:

* Invent new or use existing link layer flow control (IEEE)
* Reuse existing transport layer (TCP)
* App layer (QUIC or QUIC like)

I guess it would be useful to up front list on what type of media this must
be supported as it may change the game drastically:

* directly connected fiber p2p
* p2mp (via switch)
* p2p over encapsulation
etc...

Thx,
R.