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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 04 March 2021 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 B79ED3A1744 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:16:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nf6NBq-WJ7aT for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8FF3A1741 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 542041C01D7; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:16:21 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Peter Psenak'" <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Robert Raszuk'" <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "'Gyan Mishra'" <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "'Rajesh M'" <mrajesh@juniper.net>, "'Shraddha Hegde'" <shraddha@juniper.net>, "'DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN'" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "'Tony Li'" <tony.li@tony.li>, <lsr@ietf.org>, "'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> <7C67D01F-24DB-4450-8587-E004CAFBBEBC@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGZppwYtNr4t0rJoy3BKWaBYqHiJ_esM1XNFTNxbm8c5w@mail.gmail.com> <08882555-009B-4068-ABB0-20B0D165D722@tony.li> <2c2605a8-95c6-a477-b1b5-5ae4d4de222a@cisco.com> <52B3A5ED-6ACC-4772-BEF7-085A33A53F31@tony.li> <e5190522-3a8b-2d6e-c2fe-646049689cc4@cisco.com> <1EABA651-2F05-415B-97EF-054507FADEAC@tony.li> <f935dbc4-6220-5f47-65a4-f642823f594f@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMHXd5j8B9a13E90HQVB=SUOkQ=fqhyJEgTf-Y7Tp5eiBQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d66e5af-414a-42b7-6af5-388974785b8f@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d66e5af-414a-42b7-6af5-388974785b8f@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:16:20 +0800
Message-ID: <014301d710d7$0afee910$20fcbb30$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: zh-cn
Thread-Index: AQJETS3l63N1TkQPfJsPEVOeeWPrPQI34q6AAUXGsTECuHVZGgGHKE/UAmm8wJwCBsy1EwFjkB96AobmnTAB92n85AGhCYlvAciFMasCCaEUDwLYjLPAAtyOKCSor1KzgA==
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZS00dGhofTR4ZQh8YVkpNSk9DT0JIQ0lLTktVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6NhQ6ARw5Vj8QTBQUNA4ZLjYY UT0aFDhVSlVKTUpPQ09CSENJT0JOVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUNOT0I3Bg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a77fc86161bd993kuws542041c01d7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/j4ISzsZE-8Y4-tvpcFJmMJJUrVU>
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 09:16:28 -0000

Hi, Peter:

If we use such unpredicted parameters for the dynamic IGP calculation, will the network be operated automatically in non-consistent manner and let the operator stuck in a mess, and busy to find which semi static value was changed and what's it the cause?
Is this the right direction for network automation?


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 5:07 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>; Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>et>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>et>; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>om>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>li>; lsr@ietf.org; William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Robert,

On 03/03/2021 20:57, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Peter,
> 
>  >  that differ by few microsecond
> 
> Really you normalize only single digit microseconds ???
> 
> What if link delay changes in milliseconds scale ? Do you want to 
> compute new topology every few milliseconds ?

let me repeat again.

Min delay is not something that changes every few milliseconds significantly. It's a semi static variable that reflects the property of the underlying physical path. It only changes when the physical path properties changes - e.g. the optical path reroutes, etc. We deliberately picked Min delay for flex-algo purposes for this semi static property.

The small, non significant changes can be filtered by the normalization.

If the min delay changes significantly every few milliseconds there's something wrong with the link itself - we have standard dampening mechanisms in LS protocols to deal with unstable links that would kick in. Similar to what we do if the link flaps every few milliseconds.

> 
> Out of curiosity as this is not a secret -  What are your default min 
> delay normalization timers (if user does not overwrite with their own).

there is no timer needed for the normalization itself.

You are likely referring TWAMP computation interval which is 30 sec, 
with probes being sent every 3 seconds in our implementation by default, 
if I'm not mistaken.

Normalization is applied to the value that come from the above.

thanks,
Peter



> Likewise how Junos or Arista normalizes it today ?
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com 
> <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Tony,
> 
>     On 03/03/2021 19:14, Tony Li wrote:
>      >
>      > Peter,
>      >
>      >>> There are several link types in use that exhibit variable
>     delay: satellite links (e.g., Starlink), microwave links, and
>     ancient link layers that deliver reliability through retransmission.
>      >>> Any of these (and probably a lot more) can create a noticeable
>     and measurable difference in TWAMP. That would be reflected in an FA
>     metric change. If you imagine a situation with multiiple parallel
>     paths with nearly identical delays, you can easily imagine an
>     oscillatory scenario.   IMHO, this is an outstanding concern with FA.
>      >> yes, and that is what I referred to as "delay normalization",
>     which can avoid that oscillation.
>      >
>      >
>      > It can also negate the benefits of the feature. One might well
>     imagine that Starlink would want to follow a min-delay path for
>     optimality.  If the delay variations are “normalized” out of
>     existence, then the benefits are lost.  The whole point is to track
>     the dynamics.
> 
>     for all practical purposes that we use it for, the two values of min
>     delay that differ by few microsecond can be treated as same without any
>     loss of functionality. So it's about the required normalization
>     interval
>     - something that can be controlled by the user.
> 
>     thanks,
>     Peter
> 
> 
> 
>      >
>      >
>      >>> Please note that I’m NOT recommending that we back away.
>     Rather, we should seek to solve the long-standing issue of
>     oscillatory routing.
>      >>
>      >> not that I disagree. History tells us that the generic case of
>     oscillation which is caused by the traffic itself is a hard problem
>     to solve.
>      >
>      >
>      > Any oscillation is difficult to solve.  Positive feedback
>     certainly can exacerbate the problem. But solving hard problems is
>     why we are here.
>      >
>      > Yours in control theory,
>      > Tony
>      >
>      >
>      >
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr