Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 16 November 2018 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 4C972130DCF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 uYGITUh9tQYA for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F79130DCE for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D260548135; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4A795440210; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:36 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, lsr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181116104036.rvmrnwvgs5r452pd@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20181115022918.pfgcztognsjeb37v@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <4085ff6f77b5443ca4de319f9a909a01@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20181115232222.psroxxfwhxrdscns@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAOj+MMHLO+QjjSh-g4QWBqht3RZKrmxMDjtyhTZQhy0SJ3uojQ@mail.gmail.com> <20181116000708.sl6htsevtalu44wx@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAHxMRebnhYbwBED8Us2ZR7ikJHHs6VBR6ZLy7cCqfyDJ6XVUAw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHxMRebnhYbwBED8Us2ZR7ikJHHs6VBR6ZLy7cCqfyDJ6XVUAw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ED74P23BXNAXrU2uIcc29BCnRMU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:40:44 -0000

Rob,

Thats actually a good example, i had forgotten about that one.
This is also a lot more scalable than MTR given how (if i
remember correctly, you would only have  O(#DSCP,#egres-PE)
entries.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Rob Shakir wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 16:07 Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> > > And btw I read Peter's note as possibility (or invitation) to define
> > > algorithm which takes into account DSCP rather then a announcement that
> > > this is not there and it should never be.
> >
> > Sure, i am only talking about the solutions that tried to use DSCP for
> > routing so far. I think those failed. And when other agree and we codify
> > that, then that would not exclude the option for new work (like what
> > Peter may have in mind) to superceed that recommendation.
> >
> 
> A number of networks on which I have worked have used DSCP-based tunnel
> selection to choose between RSVP-TE LSPs. This essentially is different
> routing based on DSCP, which seems to be something that you're trying to
> cover -- is that correct?
> 
> If so, given that these are running in real networks, I find it hard to
> conclude that any IETF standard should declare them as failed.
> 
> r.

> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr