Re: [Lsr] Flow Control Discussion for IS-IS Flooding Speed

Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@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 A182612003E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 4Wt4ws4ZlT3b for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (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 B0B69120024 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id gv17so1010982pjb.1 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:54 -0800 (PST)
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=9IdTiUDH74Wi2ODNKp/LMxCwkucSYyUY9wUvHsS+nY4=; b=IDJZuy7FglvQ9oa+JML8T2FgUS1OWbAUVp43WV0a9q0XcndNvUj9Om+gyvpiuqEJpB CjoXijY1CGcH6X3In8S9H7fYA1G+UxM4jZioxlqq+s11AQrRQV7gitIXezQ63ujCnsDh KWppBAjeFpGDAS0je6Pmy3zjGiuqM7LJLj/fOdpMF5YWRfVa63PyX33vIYrXjeOGmKvg GYRdkauYeyEF4Be0F0Q9A8Js+8wcoVIyzv0Ao1GP527LG7BArY2xXLgXTgBxhgnxuT5B V5yX5Gfvp2JIGfAds5vVfy9g8Io5F8fUcfcAGdd3kYcz7dy2Ki9IOPgBppsmLZLVOAeS FeTg==
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=9IdTiUDH74Wi2ODNKp/LMxCwkucSYyUY9wUvHsS+nY4=; b=jT5ZOrM26jdDTSscRQ1RefnIapYEG7MmSHLIbxNH7cspvjEMs0sd2Kln8R/oviYVF9 SyAC2xW9+cL9xAXVrZ4YoNzM+JwV6iQb7MkemrxFiD4GJ1VrxosSbAeJ9vS8PrCnbAEw FB+keT60Pl6L7zNoi3HBbsjtfpDkxHQya4VWR5kWmDSNuyC5R08jp6Ka3CRSFz1P7Nho ek37PClLlKtuWb2O4YKREm5bp2Yxg3FCQeCG5FtdK6pg1EdXmoHN0ZRWz+L3WhszTh2N dUHwW7MKh2rNjtQyWK5k+GqOME3l7dQhSQIbQ2/YXiFuQJTJzDpYDYk/4WjmtKW0aoD9 hDjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVL4BH4sRTR/X3/lr7hD/R4GSzNaS3VK1pqw5IisNI9nge56PZw ES9SV0TnxXc9tsodawwPS7E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxKo/bSVv7vbxhuiS+NMf4BnWMpLGn/JoGH0wFotkbDxZGsglmU1BOglbJ3v6YEuWqRbGH+LQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9b93:: with SMTP id y19mr31385245plp.89.1582211333939; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.31.114.48] ([216.9.110.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm3972030pfb.116.2020.02.20.07.08.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:58:56 +1100
Message-Id: <44C0C3E0-CA5C-48BA-8F0A-EC9886F3ED13@gmail.com>
References: <MW3PR11MB4619E4E999AF8C1DC5ECA8FCC1100@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "tony.li@tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4619E4E999AF8C1DC5ECA8FCC1100@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/KmqppzCDvyH0jbUmw5koegAl6zM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flow Control Discussion for IS-IS Flooding Speed
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, 20 Feb 2020 15:08:56 -0000

Les,

> With respect, it is hard to know what you are proposing since there has never been a public description.

With respect, I’ve said it many times, both in person and in email. You need to hear it again? Sure.


> The draft on which you are a co-author does not discuss any sort of algorithm to dynamically alter the advertised value based on current router state. In fact it argues (or at least suggests) that this shouldn't be done.


I’m suggesting being more dynamic than what that draft advocates.

> Apparently you have a different idea, which maybe the next version of draft-decraene will include, but right now all we have as a description is a series of isolated sentences in multiple emails. You'll have to forgive me if I am not always clear about what you intend but have yet to state.

Again, what I’m suggesting is that the LSP receiver use a TLV (possibly Bruno’s, possibly tweaked) to tell the LSP transmitter the current space in the input packet queue. As previously described, we may want to consider oversubscription when advertising this value. This MAY be included in IIH’s and SNP’s, piggy backed on existing transmissions. 

The LSP transmitter MAY use this information, in conjunction with the knowledge of unacknowledged LSPs, to optimize the transmission rate. If no information is learned from the LSP receiver, the LSP transmitter is no worse off. If the information that was learned is old, then LSP transmitter is free to ignore it.

If the LSP receiver can’t provide a useful value (e.g., if the PD layer hasn’t been implemented), it is free to provide either the static value or no value.

As always, I am expecting that implementation experience and inter-operability testing will contribute to this effort, and I am not expecting the right answer in the first pass.

Tony