Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 01 March 2021 18:42 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 6514E3A210F for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:42:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] 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 0y0rrkyVnWjz for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 08D223A211D for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id g4so12194211pgj.0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:42:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=fB+PmM4ILT5Tjt1iyl07i0jdHmFzGUI19N6d56cuhTE=; b=gu3BEmuM9xkdlIG3RtzwyUq6lME1F17pSA+uCk4YkgJMUq4Q38cf5xYpOMvwaP7exj 2utkbEemKIBABgfRHLuEHnKMzY/mT2kj+VCL9HCqEkURyYRKhidLw7Q4NrGczNUWe+kP jlFBWyRZaJjJ6XPVVhPDE5EgG7jcMuHMPSXGhPM9Sv2RTY3holmhPx3Lu3/giTObOPCe 0PD0j94suQLOJixeuQ2dNeQtLMX1NX41WQtEzSXarnSpRh/y1zZl9jDtkOYOylMzZgto 5Mm62JtRflIyqnwaElNb+ncUwTdtYFPcEnFxs383BlX6zRx/AcluHPYyIAMz80vuevHq KWSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=fB+PmM4ILT5Tjt1iyl07i0jdHmFzGUI19N6d56cuhTE=; b=GAXeQ/XcUbDETi3r87QMlP2WOaDR3Cz7ITqOYiwUg1FvA09w0TZW1v4LjbhhwpK9xV PXMhjCiq3DZs31iwP/RglCKqg+nYL3Nzp+07oWUDKRiXHXUWXC+BUAIhsE7I7Bv0ihhK 5v5LH0sc21XlN5pOZl8xg10dy5T0UAhTQfoP3ufZ3rEeRdRrtFkxFI73ICtXnnIvR90U ODYISzebAAp92z4oFc0wGvh+xsbU+SMPcJVezIZb3ntCrBmmsN2OGdbZ5IL93RtAf1cf noeiCDqJi/FkFbHp82lqTKHOxsbC6pt6E2I14ekxvfKeQs92RN/8PNH0L74n7CL2+RpI OQuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531c1H2ZPuWU13+oSP5E8SB00TAcPa9Q+uM0z/2LlwYdlu/OWpG5 zW4ccU9JKMOjNroVQPa1RP8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwnYXCWywDk/WYPwKm4nqjIrAHq1hFRDmjdgRRO1f3CIyNKgwHr/0sY5c2jbx46vchscO6bmg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e13:: with SMTP id c19mr14826032pgb.432.1614624154223; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:42:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.41] (c-67-169-103-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.103.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ge16sm99176pjb.43.2021.03.01.10.42.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <7C67D01F-24DB-4450-8587-E004CAFBBEBC@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF2EFC0E-15A3-4DE5-BD15-4AC30B7C3257"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:42:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR0501MB38006C4B638AD2AB6A7731B5CD9A9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>
To: William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <161401476623.19237.3808413288895066510@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR0501MB380079CFD75C78610130D81BCD9D9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHKazMG3wnUA+Kd2wg2hfr01CdF5w5YYKdFaHU4_V+0SA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0UKB=HaMs9eLvvp4fVLPsEtJhQ2xFmwY80sqBNDFRudQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR0501MB38006C4B638AD2AB6A7731B5CD9A9@DM5PR0501MB3800.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/i4B5_B4RsPK4VHVinvB8VVFvUKE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints
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: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 18:42:39 -0000

Hi William, Gyan, Robert, Tony, et. al.,

Please permit me to wax a bit philosophic here.

William is exactly correct that the goal is not to make FlexAlgo deal with reservations like RSVP does.  Without some kind of setup protocol or global computation, that’s simply not possible. Moreover that’s not the real problem that we’re out to solve.

Reservations are just a first order approximation to a traffic flow in any case. We characterize them as having a fixed constant bandwidth, but we all know that that is far from the truth. Each flow is diurnal and fractally bursty. Every user who ever clicks on a link creates bandwidth demand and while the Law of Large Numbers helps us out with some averages we all know that we have no good way of characterizing the traffic that we’re trying to carry. Claiming that it is a single 12Gbps LSP is truly a huge over simplification and a good step towards solving the real problem.

So what is the real problem that we’re trying to solve?

We are trying to not drop packets.

Dropping packets is bad because it forces retransmissions and impacts someone’s Internet experience. Dropping packets is our response to congestion events. If we could manage to have a network that never congested and always delivered packets without giant latency, all would be good.

To date, we have created traffic engineering mechanisms to help us steer traffic so that we could delivery traffic without congesting. It has been a means to an end. The mechanisms that we’ve created have a non-trivial overhead and approximate our goals, but they do NOT preclude, anticipate, or avoid congestion. They do not react when we have unexpected inputs. We do extensive pre-computation to deal with even single failures and have no serious mechanisms that handle multiple failures.

Right now, FlexAlgo does nothing to help with bandwidth management. Wiilliam et. al., are proposing some first steps, which are to be encouraged. Much more will be needed, not to recreate legacy mechanisms but because we should be striving for a more sophisticated, real-time approach to bandwidth management and congestion avoidance.

Regards,
Tony


> On Mar 1, 2021, at 2:24 AM, William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gyan, 
>  
> This draft aims to provide the protocol constructs to define a flex-algorithm which is suitable for sending high bandwidth traffic. Flex-Algo is a very useful feature for network consolidation use-cases which requires different metric-types for SPF. We are trying introduce the protocol constructs to simplify the use of metric based on bandwidth via Flex-Algo.
>  
> This draft does not attempt to do bandwidth management nor reservation like what RSVP does. For LDP based networks that use igp metric relative to bandwidth, Flex-Algo provides an easy alternate.
>  
> Thanks,
> William
>  
> From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>
> Date: Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 9:40 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
> Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com <mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net <mailto:mrajesh@juniper.net>>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net <mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>>, William Britto A J <bwilliam@juniper.net <mailto:bwilliam@juniper.net>>, lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  
>  
> Hi William & Co-authors 
>  
> From first read of the draft it does appear your are trying to apply RSVP TE PCALC path and reserve message link attributes constraints such as concept of affinity bits to exclude low bandwidth or delay of individual links without taking into account all of what RSVP TE is reserving of bandwidth in the end to end path with the Path and Reserve message.  As mentioned Looking at individual links will not provide the end to end path view or bandwidth requirements for the entire path to be reserved as accomplished by RSVP TE.  
>  
> As Tony and Robert have mentioned I agree this is a good first step but does need more refinement to make useful.
>  
> Kind Regards 
>  
> Gyan
>  
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 7:24 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
> Hi William & co-authors, 
>  
> I read the draft and have two basic questions. 
>  
> 1. 
> Both bw & delay can be used as defined in the draft to construct new forwarding topologies. But how practical such topologies would be in the real life when 40GB links may be heavily occupied with bursty traffic and 10G links can sit idle ? I suppose you are trying to address the case where say 12 gbps holographic stream needs to be sent across a network.. But then I don't think if sending it in a single flow instead of spreading into many sub-flows and use as much as possible ecmp would not be a better option. 
>  
> 2. 
> Likewise how good is my accumulated link delay value if in between there are deep buffer network elements and say egress queuing to each link (which max is unaccounted for in your draft) can significantly alter the end to end delay ? Have you consider to add MAX_EGRESS_QUEUE_DELAY on a per link basis (still as static value).  So if some traffic is delay sensitive we will have a much better accuracy not to get into a trap of queuing related delays. 
>  
> Thx a lot,
> Robert.
>  
>  
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:37 AM William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> All,
>  
> We would like to draw your attention to a new ID: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U3HBQwaZL7T4mjz-MUHE7VjFtnOyNghGDh5vwJXUXkHdMxlravmRvJwdZ8sz2YPxkw$>
>  
> The draft talks about introducing link bandwidth related constraints in Flex-Algorithm which can be used to define a Flex-Algorithm based on bandwidth based metric.
>  
> Please review. Any questions and comments are welcome.
>  
> Thanks,
> William
>  
>  
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
> Date: Monday, 22 February 2021 at 10:56 PM
> To: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com <mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net <mailto:mrajesh@juniper.net>>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net <mailto:mrajesh@juniper.net>>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net <mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>>, William Britto A J <bwilliam@juniper.net <mailto:bwilliam@juniper.net>>, William Britto A J <bwilliam@juniper.net <mailto:bwilliam@juniper.net>>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:           draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Flexible Algorithms Bandwidth Constraints
> Document date:  2021-02-22
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          21
> URL:            https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3v6TruoA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3v6TruoA$>
> Status:         https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD1VexjHPQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD1VexjHPQ$>
> Htmlized:       https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3X5nPQbA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD3X5nPQbA$>
> Htmlized:       https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD2aqSYcuQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QGg36p91zPfVMznYY91xs-zx70Qp5BE1nJx-Thnl14sTCkvwgOjEzjGBtD2aqSYcuQ$>
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>    Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link
>    capacity.  High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link
>    capacity.  Flexible algorithms provides mechanisms to create
>    constraint based paths in IGP.  This draft documents a set of
>    bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible Algorithms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U3HBQwaZL7T4mjz-MUHE7VjFtnOyNghGDh5vwJXUXkHdMxlravmRvJwdZ8vQC8uTvg$>.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
>  
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U3HBQwaZL7T4mjz-MUHE7VjFtnOyNghGDh5vwJXUXkHdMxlravmRvJwdZ8umPEf2Zg$>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U3HBQwaZL7T4mjz-MUHE7VjFtnOyNghGDh5vwJXUXkHdMxlravmRvJwdZ8umPEf2Zg$>
> -- 
>  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U3HBQwaZL7T4mjz-MUHE7VjFtnOyNghGDh5vwJXUXkHdMxlravmRvJwdZ8vByLZnBg$>
> Gyan Mishra
> Network Solutions Architect 
> M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike 
> Silver Spring, MD
>  
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>