Re: [Lsr] Dynamic flow control for flooding

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 23 July 2019 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 CCD33120991 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:02:15 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=raszuk.net
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 Dq9N1l5NId0Y for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (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 F091B1209D3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id m14so6612705qka.10 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=P5ZsejEXAnY3mB2nsO9TUZfMPargabymsJzS7Y0Y5Q8=; b=SooroF0PoOk6AWVuiSrVtdSrdhINVDT9KsK1zu8L9tF00FhVzJlS7BuY90mDeaBijI Pfz+SGJnWzCqe9LjRbPBZVMdja9OMd+i5Z0TK7Zmtt21EcF6TVKxC+iuhk6in1q7DwRb AzjpeltBrT0DfrBupV+2+QxtrtN8GltriKkXtkjsvAVGVCO8yRveAfQ6mGBs2RRPRAdW eRa1wOfYNDCGVKXFnqtdGqrHXc9xYmNOHfcni8exqqaUNzsIlqV/RlykUBk/VH+kRS1r PvbIadVyv7awFb8FKzUYUmgdZpmN2hSWzh3tYE29YoENtzlQy/iKLBdTFwbx5uPjrYkC leYA==
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=P5ZsejEXAnY3mB2nsO9TUZfMPargabymsJzS7Y0Y5Q8=; b=tbmtEGSrL+RIBWdtd8zTY2kJNStkZSCSNB5zNsoVEMW3XGyjSKZsNNTwqg+si7U+Ak Wjp8uNkz3BakntO1NrQvfVIn/86Mw4GtH6KnglJmoVVCapwQsVUYh+0tO9ilY2N5QQRl A/64/PhupDTlL8HslpeZQDIWQDEUW2o/wWjeDuB+jTiLPSLrQr7bkwAdfhnWhqql3Zvq kTH0gKu5cUuMVrOZ6ylKc52LkzYykr81bvED57ZQ8y9aSZXobduDUMv3GDWEmL9CVyJb GFhBB3gcQS5WN38awmjykEbkMjQS5amvULxhfDssV1k2QWicsRg5pyfdTTTcWZhNt9Jy XT5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXm0oYXX6FHf3hs/EgunlxOUdW7bOsmL5VGkUpC2ZLHqSXcI868 PoGOsGyQGxK6vmrcAaUaq/a86MVchH1KIJujVZskaYFI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyUrmCap8HJWRmu0rKnSyZaTeZdLEEn6ngropLQsXALPb9qClVb/fYIsDs1Ru33I7auUWXxpOGwJiHcNbPtDY8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1286:: with SMTP id w6mr50275920qki.219.1563919329879; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMj-N0LdaNBapVNisWs6cbH6RsHiXd-EMg6vRvO_U+UQsYVvXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMj-N0LdaNBapVNisWs6cbH6RsHiXd-EMg6vRvO_U+UQsYVvXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:02:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH02oUHtcJujparBVDo+-jS=WvYV50yVCgFsq=w=8BPMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d80a0058e605810"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/geK9QwI3blZpvfkZ9uMOY8djsAU>
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 22:02:28 -0000

Hi Tony,

Are you working on the assumption that there is no data link layer flow
control already which could signal the OS congestion on the receiving end ?

Are we also working on the assumptions that when ISIS PDUs are send in DCs
(unknown today case when out of the sudden 1000s of LSPs may need to get
flooded) use of some L4 fancy flow control is an overkill and we must
invent new essentially L2 flow control to cover this case to address
partition repair ?

Thx,
R.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:34 PM Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to continue the discussion that we left off with last night.
>
> The use case that I posited was a situation where we had 1000 LSPs to
> flood. This is an interesting case that can happen if there was a large
> network that partitioned and has now healed.  All LSPs from the other side
> of the partition are going to need to be updated.
>
> Let’s further suppose that the LSPs have an average size of 1KB.  Thus,
> the entire transfer is around 1MB.
>
> Suppose that we’re doing this on a 400Gb/s link. If we were to transmit
> the whole batch of LSPs at once, it takes a whopping 20us.  Not
> milliseconds, microseconds.  2x10^-5s.  Clearly, we are not going to be
> rate limited by bandwidth.
>
> Note that 20us is an unreasonable lower bound: we cannot reasonably expect
> a node to absorb 1k PDUs back to back without loss today, in addition to
> all of it’s other responsibilities.
>
> At the opposite end of the spectrum, suppose we transmit one PDU every
> 33ms.  That’s then going to take us 33 seconds to complete. Unreasonably
> slow.
>
> How can we then maximize our goodput?  We know that the receiver has a set
> of buffers and a processing rate that it can support. The processing rate
> will vary, depending on other loads.
>
> What we would like the transmitter to do is to transmit enough to create a
> small processing queue on the receiver and then transmit at the receiver’s
> processing rate.
>
> Can we agree on this goal?
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>