Re: [Lsr] IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot request)

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Joel, 

Thank you for the suggestion of Babel. 

Babel is a Distance vector protocol that  sends entire routing table to directly connected neighbors. Useful for some domains. 

IS-IS and OSFP,  Link state protocols send information about directly connected links to all the routers in the network, are useful for more domains. 

Why only for Distance Vector based? Not Link state based? 

Linda 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot request)

If you want to experiment with unusual metrics, and minimize the degree to which you need consistency, maybe you should look at running a different routing protocol in this limited domain?  Rather than trying to make IS-IS and OSPF do something they are not designed for?  (While there are probably other alternatives, Babel comes to mind as a routing protocol designed with experimentaiton with metrics in mind.)

Yours,
Joel

On 7/14/2021 12:20 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Acee,
> 
> The "limited domain" per RFC8799  is a special purposed network that 
> have boundary, e.g. DetNet. For 5G EC, a Limited Domain network could 
> be built specifically for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), as specified 
> by 3GPP 23.748.  This UAV Limited Domain network has routers and links 
> that connect the moving UAVs with the UAV control servers, the 
> analytics functions, and data storages; has boundary and  may not have 
> access to public internet.
> 
> Among those routers in the UAV Limited Domain, the routing distance 
> alone is no longer enough in computing the optimal Path. Therefore, 
> IGP is needed to distribute not only link bandwidth, but also the IP 
> layer Metrics specified by draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ext, specifically:
> 
>   * Capacity Index:
> 
> Is used to differentiate the running environment of the attached 
> application server (analytics or data storages) that are identified by 
> their IP addresses.  At some sites, the IP address exposed to the 
> network is the App Layer Load balancer that have  many instances 
> attached.  At other sites,  the IP address exposed is the server 
> instance only.
> 
> "Capacity Index", which is a numeric number configured by the Domain 
> Controller on all A-ERs in the domain consistently , is used to 
> represent the capacity of the application server attached to an A-ER.
> 
>   * Site preference index: 
> 
> Is used to describe some sites are more preferred than others for some 
> flows that are identified by the IP header fields. "Site Preference 
> Index", which is a numeric number configured by the Domain Controller.
> 
>   * IP-Layer Metric for gauging the Load for the attached Prefix (i.e.,
>     App Server):
> 
> The Load Measurement to an attached IP prefix (App Server) is a 
> weighted combination of the number of packets/bytes to the IP prefix 
> and the number of packets/bytes from the IP prefix which are collected 
> by the A-ER that has the App Server directly attached.
> 
> An A-ER only collects those measurement for the prefixes instructed by 
> the Domain Controller .
> 
> The work proposed is for the LSR Chartered Work Item "4) Extensions 
> for source-destination routing".
> 
> Is this description clear enough to move forward in the LSR WG?
> 
> Best regards, Linda Dunbar
> 
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:46 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Yingzhen Qu 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> We seem to be in a circular discussion - we're not standardizing 
> loosely-defined metrics that only work in limited domains for OSPF and 
> IS-IS. It is not a question of where.
> 
> Acee
> 
> *From: *Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Yingzhen 
> Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *RE: IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> Acee,
> 
> Limited domain also needs IS-IS and OSPF  routing protocol (among 
> routers in the limited domain). If not in LSR, where is the right place?
> 
> Linda
> 
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:24 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Yingzhen Qu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> Linda - we're not doing routing for limited domains in LSR. It doesn't 
> make any sense to go any further until you fix the draft or abandon it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> *From: *Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:23 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Yingzhen 
> Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *RE: IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> Acee,
> 
> The scope of the draft is for IGP in the  Limited Domains per RFC8799, 
> i.e. the small number of routers in the 5G LDN domain. Not meant for 
> public Internet.
> 
> Answers to your questions are inserted below:
> 
> Linda
> 
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2021 7:06 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Yingzhen Qu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> Hi Linda,
> 
> *From: *Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:41 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Yingzhen 
> Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *IP layer metrics collected by Edge routers - 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext (was: LSR Presentation Slot
> request)
> 
> Acee,
> 
> The draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext has two parts:
> 
> -Aggregated Cost Advertisement
> 
> -IP Layer App-Metrics Advertisements by OSPF
> 
> "Aggregated Cost" is only applicable to scenario where all the A-ER 
> can have a consistent algorithm to compute the Aggregated cost.
> 
> When it is not possible for all the egress edge routers to have a 
> consistent algorithm to compute the aggregated cost or some routers 
> need all the detailed IP Layer metrics for the App Servers for other 
> purposes, the raw IP layer metrics collected A-ER will be distributed.
> Only the nodes that are capable of utilizing the metrics will process 
> the sub-TLV.
> 
> So, why would these "capable" nodes have a consistent algorithm for 
> using this complex set of metrics but the A-ERs would not have a 
> consistent algorithm for aggregating the cost?
> 
> [Linda] Example of the nodes that need the metrics: analytic function 
> (residing on one of the nodes in the LDN);  a small number of UPF 
> functions that need the metrics.
> 
> Since only a subset of routers within an IGP domain need to know those 
> detailed metrics, the draft used your suggested  OSPFv2 Extended 
> Prefix Opaque LSA for IPv4 and OSPFv3 Extended LSA with 
> Intra-Area-Prefix TLV to carry the detailed sub-TLVs.  For routers 
> that don't care about those metrics, they can ignore them very easily.
> 
> This just doesn't work. All routers in an IGP domain must use the same 
> algorithm. You can't just draw a picture with an LDN directly 
> connected to a couple A-ERs say that the LDNs can use your metrics to 
> route application specific traffic. The problem could possibly be 
> solved with flex algorithm but it would require a lot more 
> specification. I guess with your simple topology different LDNs could 
> use the metrics differently as well? This would explain why you are 
> not concerned with "consistency".  \
> 
> [Linda] The 5G LDN domain  is a limited domain per RFC 8799, and forms 
> its own IGP domain. The "consistency is only for the limited nodes 
> that are configured to utilize the IP layer metrics". The IP Layer 
> metrics is for nodes in this limited domain to supplement the 
> forwarding path computation.
> 
> It worth noting that not all hosts (prefix) attached to an A-ER are 
> ANYCAST servers that need network optimization. An A-ER only needs to 
> advertise the App-Metrics for the ANYCAST addresses that match with 
> the configured ACLs.
> 
> Note that routes are based on IP prefixes and not applications while 
> the draft uses these two interchangeably.
> 
> [Linda] the Applications that need special consideration are 
> identified by its IP address.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> Any other concerns?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Linda Dunbar
> 
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2021 4:04 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Yingzhen Qu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] LSR Presentation Slot Requests - IETF111
> 
> Speaking as WG member:
> 
> Hi Linda,
> 
> Even if you've added some IS-IS encodings, the draft still suffers 
> from the fundamental problem of the previous draft. If you can't rely 
> on the A-ERs to consistently calculate an aggregated metric, how can 
> you rely on all the routers in the IGP routing domain to use complex 
> set of metrics to reach the least-loaded app server? Do we really want 
> to talk about this again?
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> *From: *Linda Dunbar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:27 PM
> *To: *Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *RE: [Lsr] LSR Presentation Slot Requests - IETF111
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Resent-To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> Christian Hopps <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:27 PM
> 
> Yingzhen and LSR Chairs,
> 
> We need a 10 minutes slot at IETF111 to present
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
> tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute%2F&amp;data=
> 04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C1343088f05a845cecb8608d946e55
> a27%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637618773148844727%7C
> Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h
> aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=egQVdPhH0gFPEH%2FG04Q8ZqhDGjAlLV2R
> mpuvtoBWrfk%3D&amp;reserved=0 
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdat
> atracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute%2F&amp;data
> =04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C1343088f05a845cecb8608d946e5
> 5a27%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637618773148844727%7
> CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=egQVdPhH0gFPEH%2FG04Q8ZqhDGjAlLV2
> RmpuvtoBWrfk%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> 
> 
> Speaker: Linda Dunbar.
> 
> This draft adds the IS-IS extension to the 
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext-04.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Linda Dunbar
> 
> *From:* Lsr <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On 
> Behalf Of *Yingzhen Qu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 30, 2021 4:00 PM
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [Lsr] LSR Presentation Slot Requests - IETF111
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> The draft agenda for IETF111 has been posted: 
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
> tracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F111%2Fagenda&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dun
> bar%40futurewei.com%7C1343088f05a845cecb8608d946e55a27%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637618773148844727%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
> 7C1000&amp;sdata=CniobGmY%2FOz6gmbkXWo%2B29TtH20oKOg9rG6658Icrw0%3D&am
> p;reserved=0 
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F111%2Fagenda&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C1343088f05a845cecb8608d946e55a27%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637618773148844727%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=CniobGmY%2FOz6gmbkXWo%2B29TtH20oKOg9rG6658Icrw0%3D&amp;reserved=0>.
> 
> 
> LSR will have one meeting session: Friday, July 30, 2021 16:00-18:00
>   Session III PDT
> 
> Please send slot requests to [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>. Please include name of the presenter, 
> pointer to the draft and time estimation including Q&A.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yingzhen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40
> futurewei.com%7C1343088f05a845cecb8608d946e55a27%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c7
> 53a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637618773148844727%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
> WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000
> &amp;sdata=z3oCltG3C9K0jC9Gd%2BSEcZpc%2BGlvg3wsAsn1Kkh8hI0%3D&amp;rese
> rved=0
>