Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 03 April 2020 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@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 F3CA93A08F8 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, 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=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 mTwhDVg-Nisz for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 2C3E63A09DB for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id a23so2016162plm.1 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dlcmM/ajtKuxANUsM7cJisQaCQZB0Sq2xRE87UCwMeA=; b=NP9EbSnMnjaQQIoHzycfm/kRpZ8c6zAvVHjvl/YAqIb0KZg0RNxy68kkWWT1tk44Ol zZcMGI4RQ5uvvrQiMzDDGdf0xlOdP3x40nYG6LYYb8Gx5vBorgAzE294Eb13+0Jm7xnq GWM9K0G8h9eCcrB6bEXSnYMKh4/x+2B8oKYjdvs7wK580FhLsw9nTa/Ol7y2cPWhfEDN yuS3E8eMPwPYhppHBuDAp3WGXFYtJG76vxhXRYz/pATZc0l97RBrpHg+UtRT73/v6vzt sttvBiTzx229aKQtt9aDJIW8+1+1yDIyo8e9qE2CBSiTawqkSFcnmXXW7LuMm1qg+QbX dNQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dlcmM/ajtKuxANUsM7cJisQaCQZB0Sq2xRE87UCwMeA=; b=BU3sH+xUiXgCD5BbhqS6PtebveBpvexEgzyiwCi1CegUMvA+FRfNtbKW1A1PY4yMIM 3nXijrfAJre63zJlny3fsCZ8XxaCQTQW7klg+vvg5sKwNRkGGB3HWe4q9I/Q80Dv0rS0 qzZGX8Wi9/jkdgQWBUCrc6d0sdQFoLhZbc5Ux4fMa1o2VmYUSg8jFzTC2Zs1Ud4r85kB lvvf1YaxxmNwA1qWtX8zsoclhOcgACp2FFBqt220K8PWU6bkGrHqei3dM4KqRvg90zYb kI+U9GrYPI3fIe48sTUq0cMQUMdeNddQRyoBhyaO5RC/miZW0Ryc01K+BtaxTth+sVLM kefA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYNw/ra6x9x9doHmFZPLb47ffdO3B4rbMBlGcHPFUrhVPFEstr/ 0X8S/e7IGXaSNz57yqEnoW8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIwpWLBXROr8VmMo/2u2jBvKUrkIRVp0Y0VyVABM6oTfohDWikOAtR+q4SuEORUIIRCQ/XduA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c392:: with SMTP id h18mr6687177pjt.89.1585873117585; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y9sm4721206pfo.135.2020.04.02.17.18.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-7D70E1C0-6584-45D6-8D4F-3CDAF04F0BCB"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:18:35 -0700
Message-Id: <10E7E575-93A7-4C0F-B8DD-1AF44D1432F4@gmail.com>
References: <CAOj+MMGSjb2Medd_wkV314pYrm_96GD5urxw5Qs34hMZt5BXMw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGSjb2Medd_wkV314pYrm_96GD5urxw5Qs34hMZt5BXMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E255)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Kgo5ziFgaz3YPqgnLzs4hbBgTEE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02
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, 03 Apr 2020 00:19:21 -0000

Robert, 

We are deviating ;-)

There’s no feedback loop from telemetry producers back to the TE headend.
The telemetry, either end2end or postcards is sent to a  collector that has the context of the data and normalizes it so it can be consumed by an external system, being centralized or distributed PCE or anything else that could make use of it. Do you see IGP anywhere in between?


Regards,
Jeff

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 16:03, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joel,
> 
> > Robert, you seem to be asking that we pass full information about the
> > dynamic network state to all routers  
> 
> No not at all. 
> 
> Only TE headends need this information. 
> 
> To restate ... I am not asking to have a synchronized input to all routes in the domain such that their computation would be consistent. 
> 
> I am only asking for TE headends to be able to select end to end paths based on the end to end inband telemetry data. I find this a useful requirement missing from any of today's operational deployments. 
> 
> Many thx,
> R. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:59 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> Robert, you seem to be asking that we pass full information about the 
>> dynamic network state to all routers so that they can, if needed, serve 
>> as fully intelligent path computation engines.  If you want to do that, 
>> you will need more than just the telemetry.  You will need the demands 
>> that are coming in to all of those routers, so that you can make global 
>> decisions sensibly.
>> Which is why we use quasi-centralized path computation engines.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> On 4/2/2020 6:16 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> > 
>> >      > If you consider such constrains to provide reachability for
>> >     applications you will likely see value that in-situ telemetry is
>> >     your friend here. Really best friend as without him you can not do
>> >     the proper end to end path exclusion for SPT computations..
>> > 
>> >     [as wg member] Are you thinking that shifting traffic to a router is
>> >     not going to affect it's jitter/drop rate?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Well this is actually the other way around.
>> > 
>> > First you have your default topology. They you are asked to 
>> > construct new one based on applied constrains.
>> > 
>> > So you create complete TE coverage and start running end to end data 
>> > plane probing over all TE paths (say SR-TE for specific example). Once 
>> > you start collecting the probe results you can start excluding paths
>> > which do not meet your applied constraints. And that process continues..
>> > 
>> > To your specific question - It is not that unusual where routers degrade 
>> > their performance with time and in many cases the traffic is not the 
>> > cause for it but internal bugs and malfunctions.
>> > 
>> > Best,
>> > R.
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Lsr mailing list
>> > Lsr@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr