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

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Wed, 03 March 2021 22:41 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 694483A118E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:41:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 EBq7rgggi18K for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (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 C5A323A1C93 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id s23so5345016pji.1 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 14:41:17 -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=zB5PLmxrAilUyCeNYsHr6FzqZrs+lpl7SyjbO5PiSFw=; b=oS0uiwcjXOJeo9bU0oPL/4XQ9jEwJjD40CXbUNAJQVDKigqDEpD0JiuGJHXoHePS95 wH6UNtVtjUR7ThO5MC2Vf/XBZcVZx50e68OQbMnn/c+8r/v5HT9rEVT0aAYA4BcbTl4v /5k/VbzD6npqDwUQuNvvve5FqNP8KdwbR4kNllrWEpFfGRbeoc3vz8hTpxBOmC9gdR4J YHTHQApCafNyE6ylYIwHDfpVxwHcWB9jV1jlVOEMLUxkrlO1kI08tiUDk1BGWXhmU/7q OJmCnutb/L3xhZPnWQrSLHowduHzTUTXb9jvAB8wtxoNiCQuVfOu0upeSgdpJj0PGrLO Y5mQ==
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=zB5PLmxrAilUyCeNYsHr6FzqZrs+lpl7SyjbO5PiSFw=; b=nNwvZ0Epo8IS/KA7Vdrkb/V4VDUlXqiABn8jOXOYu7duPA+onpVuoD2/DGCLgf+0js hH5QZXbr7z06/exXw1ZR0ed3Scei0SZl7QqW8VGci2/onMsGTCXsBTY+0gmpO+XIrW3H yJwdAxb9qLTENy/2ERZms+WIqkUOW7eBcypZQe19wIohs4qDGSq6/QNaF1Ro37vN0o2D FnIBWiOIBQiVf7ZzyM5NER3yy1Hb+8ecagmu7KkKLXbU+3shHfq5YxjkanIguEt7ucG0 natjg+JYwwFPUMRM7IVFp6uFTKWyN3z95uE+s4at6IPHDzXkvs8hPkJJEHzOEezKA/nq 2peA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+kC66YzaxNPl12n26aTaJGN+7SgjRRmvOT0l6FwNVLvj4SIGS HAPJnZmbOru+8kN4X1BRuYc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxszQ6E7DjGI+aKy644azNP2J2EBokS2U8IAICi1UZyi3VrS9o9yR2dTLMf9ppvGrBjlM8Mgw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7344:: with SMTP id j4mr1337489pjs.216.1614811276561; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 14:41:16 -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 f20sm3683319pfa.10.2021.03.03.14.41.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 14:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <AEFDC6F4-3680-4100-9844-5934E060D684@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EFB3907-46BF-4FEB-982F-B9EB610C3CEA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:41:12 -0800
In-Reply-To: <BBD5B678-D3B5-4E9E-8F9E-E054D9867EF9@juniper.net>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Rajesh M <mrajesh@juniper.net>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, William Britto A J <bwilliam=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
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> <BBD5B678-D3B5-4E9E-8F9E-E054D9867EF9@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/jY8MA-riMlSDpipduUHtkUDy2FU>
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 22:41:20 -0000

Hi Tarek,

Please recall that in FA there is no path setup. If the delay changes and it propagates to other nodes, then the network will SPF and paths may change immediately.

Tony



> On Mar 3, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
>  
> The RSVP-TE world has had to deal with such churn resulting from frequent link attribute changes (e.g. specific to available BW). In that case, such frequent changes made their way to the network at periodic intervals and in the event they crossed a threshold. In my mind, the link delay attribute is no different and IGPs can react to it just like RSVP-TE did.
>  
> Obviously, any path that was computed and placed on a set of links based on a certain view of the network may quickly become stale. However, IMO, any per-path e2e SLA need to be validated (independent of the network topology) e.g., by active measurement using probes or other means.
>  
> My 2cents.
>  
> Regards,
> Tarek
>  
> On 3/3/21, 2:57 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Robert Raszuk" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> 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 ? 
>  
> 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). 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
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
>