Re: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Linda:

 

Is it better to add some analysis for the flooding influences on the router performance when we add such dynamic information within the IGP protocol?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:44 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

 

Acee, 

 

Thank you very much for suggesting using the Prefix TLV for carry the Running Status and environment of 5G Edge Computing servers. 

 

In a nutshell, the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext/ proposes the extension to LSA that can carry the three SubTLVs that are used to represent the Running Status and Environment information of the 5G Edge Computing Servers attached to the router:

 

Ø  Load measurement sub-TLV  

Ø  Capacity Index  Sub-TLV                             

Ø  Preference Index  Sub-TLV                                                   

 

Several sections of the draft are devoted to describe what those measurement are and why need them for 5G Edge Computing, which may have made it not so straightforward when reading in a rush. 

 

The Goal of the OSPF extension is to carry those Sub-TLVs in the router’s LSA to be advertised to other routers in the 5G Local Data Network. 

 

If using your suggested RFC7684 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV, the extension does seem easier and cleaner: 

 

We can have: 

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

| Type                          | Length                        |

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

| Route Type    | Prefix Length | AF            | Flags         |

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

| Address Prefix (variable)                                     |

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   

| Load Measurement Sub-TLV                                      | 

~                                                               ~ 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   

| capacity Index Sub-TLV                                        | 

~                                                               ~ 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   

| Site Preference Sub-TLV                                       | 

~                                                               ~  

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   

 

 

RFC7684 only has the Extended Prefix TLV for IPv4. If the App Server addresses are in IPv6, should we specify the extension to RFC8362 in the same draft? Or define a new AF type for the same extension to RFC7684? 

 

Your guidance is greatly appreciated. 

 

Thank you very much. 

 

Linda Dunbar

 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

 

We have a pretty full schedule and we add you as optional. I took a look at the draft and it is all over the place right now with standardization requested for one solution but 3 separate solutions partially specified. It could benefit from some WG mailing list discussion prior to a 10 minute presentation where we wouldn’t have time to discuss the many issues. 

 

One major issue is that you should be extending RFC 7684 rather than RFC 3630 and it seems you these app-server selection metrics should be associated with a prefix and NOT a stub link (i.e., the application server address).

 

I’ll try to read it in more depth before IETF 109. 

 

Thanks,
Acee

 

From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> " <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> " <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests
Resent-From: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, Christian Hopps <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Resent-Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM

 

LSR Chairs, YingZhen, 

 

Can you give us 10 minute slot to present this new draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext/ <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C83f990f38fe14407efe208d880300245%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637400290992237706%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CooHUjUYe%2BePz9rwBZe0orzPqku%2BoSL%2FrMVVa%2Fl2uIc%3D&reserved=0> 

 

This draft describes an OSPF extension that can distribute the 5G Edge Computing App running status and environment, so that other routers in the 5G Local Data Network can make intelligent decision on optimizing forwarding of flows from UEs. The goal is to improve latency and performance for 5G Edge Computing services. 

 

Thank you very much, 

 

Linda Dunbar

 

From: Lsr <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

 

Hi all, 

 

We're now accepting agenda requests for the LSR Working Grouping meeting IETF 109. Please send your requests to  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] indicating draft name, speaker, and desired duration (covering presentation and discussion). 

 

LSR session is scheduled on Monday, Nov 16, 12:00-14:00 ICT.

 

Thanks,

Yingzhen