Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding
Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <tonysietf@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 1A37A1209C1 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:57:06 -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 jK8x8mfV1b8Z for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (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 8F2411209BA for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id e3so45203574edr.10 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:57:03 -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=z2JpkIXPNq/9A3KEKf2gQD+1pwylVWZTPxIUfInxYVE=; b=cU/nmNZhqg7LunUiGpk0bkBJaElOnVZ3AxgmnrTlq8fWOjmkTUhWYci9sEe5MP1UMD /Tzz0plDqltcsqQ5Delulp170j1bbN7O9h9FzLcDU/aqxzMQzYsAVJI1vLFZ4faWuhYr J3BVN885NDgHhJd4zF/LdzhHne6pfNqcvYmTktNJ5E/CwkVVl5lXILNl902Glw+xOfjY /deYWwRSJCIAbG0XMHO+HpsNoF1SyOjmj3XLb9Y7ycmDtRcVWo8pufd//342BX+66mT2 6ghUtjTK+4GgFAkEJxObcG/zPIvSqyplvl04FuEzQMt0yYKE48ZPldpe4Cxdsvkw2V+g Z97A==
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=z2JpkIXPNq/9A3KEKf2gQD+1pwylVWZTPxIUfInxYVE=; b=kDT4lvaKm45LI2BaMS1ERxmGkvA52RSv4Km9U8iWi14Wi3496cF4QIurhyTtpVl4SV unfxEqcaUf5X2cuGKKerATy0yrWcRYhj/1y05FVQ57Z7gaY66e+lTOfcw/QTceskUM78 VF4TtNWKuL7cXf8IFRPKAVa7wVKo6+hkle4FkcrRnXnL/OTXEaO7zaGKprCBn/vy2iNk 7RQFEXV7Yen6ui1ki7lzzIrlwPIIb4NLc6yb0z9lqg81mj2IchsKE0r6d6myXW/HTkK1 fjs4x8WjDh4OoCyu3/MmfuQmIxU1bln7oN3dltv6NDqwjuM2434hEUWMVN2JyTiiu+4q 2m9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV8CVrlazNk7gIXa1fgJ23riYqmL6nV4dSsc5SjXtx1tOyUY9Km Lg0ox7VRmF2rCvT1Q2STS0tDKXGMgWOtmSRQctqZh8v/8Mo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2s4ER1fd6BJSGNpdH+HmcyAUH6YtgBtLwayGUqM42pCVU5mOul3Wvgxf8HFDscWLShaL7PmYtwBTP1Zzrc7g=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f91:: with SMTP id f17mr58200471ejr.250.1563915422144; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMj-N0LdaNBapVNisWs6cbH6RsHiXd-EMg6vRvO_U+UQsYVvXw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB36382C89363202D1B5659614C1C70@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB36382C89363202D1B5659614C1C70@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:55:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hM5QqjfyakGYPVwmb4amXKRSy5-_YuQEY5V1CePzv77cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000321c66058e5f6ff8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/UIkzsHdJy9phmr1pq-I6ylmgJCw>
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:57:16 -0000
> > > It is a mistake to equate LSP flooding with a set of independent P2P > “connections” – each of which can operate at a rate independent of the > other. > > > > At least my experience much disagrees with that and such a proposal seems to steer towards slowest receiver in the whole network problem so I wait for others to chime in. Then, to clarify on Tony's mail, the "problem" I mentioned anecdotally yesterday as behavior I saw on things I did in their time was of course when processors were still well under 1GHz and links in Gigs and not 10s and 100s of Gigs we have today but yes, the limiting factor was the flooding rate (or rather effective processing rate of receiver AFAIR before it started drop the RX queues or was late enough to cause RE-TX on senders) in terms of losses/retransmissions necessary that were causing transients to the point it looked to me then the cure seemed worse than the disease (while the disease was likely a flu then compared to today given we didn't have massively dense meshes we steer towards today). The base spec & mandated flooding numbers didn't change but what is possible in terms of rates when breaking the spec did change of course in terms of CPU/links speed albeit most ISIS implementations go back to megahertz processors still ;-) And the dinner was great BTW ;-) So yes, I do think that anything that will flood @ reasonable rate without excessive losses will work well on well-computed double-flood-reduced-graph, the question is how to get the "reasonable" in place both in terms of numbers as well as mechanism for which we saw tons lively discussions/proposal yesterday, most obvious being of course going and manually bumping e'one's implementation to the desired (? ;-) value ... Other consideration is having computation always trying to get more than 2 links in minimal cut on the graph of course which should alleviate any bottleneck or rather, make the cut less likely. Given quality of max-disjoint-node/link graph computation algorithms that should be doable by gut feeling. If e.g. the flood rate per link is available the algorithms should be doing even better in centralized case. BTW, with all that experience (MANET did its share in different space as we know in terms of flood reduction as well) in RIFT we chose a solution based on MANET derivative where every source chooses a different set of trees to flood on using Fisher-Yates hashes but that seems possible only if you have directionality on the graph (that's what I said once on the mike that doing flood reduction in a lattice [partial rank-ordered graph with upper & lower bounds] is fairly trivial, on generic graphs not so much necessarily). But maybe Pascal reads that and gives it a think ;-) as usual, 2 cents to improve the internet ;-) --- tony
- [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding David Lamparter
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding henk.ietf
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Henk Smit
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Henk Smit
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Henk Smit
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding Henk Smit