Re: [Lsr] Why not leverage Network conditions to optimize balancing among multiple App Layer Load Balancers? as proposed by draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 DC76A3A13B5 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=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 8gDfpxXS3TL5 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (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 1CA763A13B2 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id e26so123118pfd.9 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J4KQjqLaAunOPdgAR+U2ElL43K6chBMSRuOQaSdIoao=; b=ddLHWg49RAo6Hh10sPWWzYDteNzfhg2rCvT4cNcEAb/9Bff95zV2VfnzQn2dwWuulB FEAaAck9xgmtohsoKu2QSefs7mk9DoDtW0Ahn7aQn2dsKwjJri0iMIw0Vye//qS9Naua XA01h/KlJA8vCbrkJH3NiSP86kegDSDespEE0eLnq0CAb1gt2Y6IxcaJc06alid1Pjdy PsFw0u8vFojkZBrMJM8QjOnQnK7foFdhp2Z7nAvES6krzW2xxgIxf8a0/74ZBexe9KHs +bWTb1bggYVF8YoZXRoK2/JItp2MQHdu+8ygbUSDKlAE/MHmw5rl0fqmlC4ytL+o0zQO xvpw==
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=J4KQjqLaAunOPdgAR+U2ElL43K6chBMSRuOQaSdIoao=; b=TrwckFAV5/cXdCw3QgIX6wUyQSz6T8u2DD2oAJOTs5E3ELTif3SEACkZJAl2ckZwKD 07Ktav/AAFmlmz06mYUrL/YMyJ5VhPWb7E8M7N0fKN2xs7wVqqqwxZtiSR+J+3+gL/vf rHRLcE5mALWuPudWjRef3/ITX66tFrOdCWPb5CJRHwL3EnXcMt1gGQs2GBRE6lxPnzVh jcur7RrhVCiNXhgQtkZrqrBlyuvO3E2Kcr/wzCR1Nv8mqpOEwFCB5QuLINr5K0Ho7JZh c23YMcDgSC2HTfbAt2VUYP65JwGGoqTmdmCaaYSCyGuWvAi6sv3841MAuvWkwh7or4bH qntg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331/66vNxk0nj4c3ract6lqj4nlu5XlZR1ERVK8Qpelm73ctMT9 eVi2mjj9YD/QA9gElPO973ibuCwbE4sXYfZy00c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOyjEMLxSRP00vGb1wd8pflViXC5TS9YBXikeeaX5nkKYorlpa+Pb4LJ6GwGKPE8TOX7vmayCDwDMOhgy3btA=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:eb53:: with SMTP id b19mr6853967pgk.383.1615270072279; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:07:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR13MB23348360D4BE7D6E73B5828385929@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <8207CCF7-7C42-429E-B368-CA9CD99DE06D@chopps.org> <383410c728b948e194538960987f8468@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <383410c728b948e194538960987f8468@huawei.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 01:07:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1MSpMXY+=-jKfFrozd2=ztZ38SybxDM6_LVFRVHGR48g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dfe67e05bd145ee2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/p71XkPWX7mbaWVtxuk0fUq8tHBk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Why not leverage Network conditions to optimize balancing among multiple App Layer Load Balancers? as proposed by draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext
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, 09 Mar 2021 06:07:58 -0000

Linda and authors

Some thoughts regarding load balancing draft.

Anycast in my experience has been used predominantly in my experience
within operators networks with BGP overlay,  using BGP best path selection
and most cases boils down to lowest IGP metric tie breaker shortest path
for the service Anycast proximity route which you can also with unique RD
in overlay and can take advantage of iBGP multipath equal cost load
balancing over an operator vaccine or 4G/5G RAN xhaul or internet.

The nice thing about Anycast with BGP overlay you as are automatically
proximity based routing load balancing inherent to Anycast routing.

Point here is we are using BGP best path selection but it does boils down
to IGP lowest metric tie breaker but you can use iBGP multipath to further
optimize the routing for cloud computing.

We have so many tools in our operators toolbox to optimize routing SR or
Flex-Algo, SDN etc am wondering if some form of SDN or SD-WAN overlay could
provide the Dyncast type Dynamic Anycast solution.

I want to the wiki page for Dyncast.  The presentation is not available
yet.  Will check tomorrow.

Thanks

Gyan


On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:36 PM Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Sorry to chime in.
>
>
>
> There are certainly some higher layer application/protocols to employ. At
> the same time, there are some advantages of network layer approaches as
> well in my mind.
>
>
>
> When talking about edge computing, there are some unique characteristics.
> The number of edge sites could be large or huge in future in a big city.
> Edges are geographically scattered which could be a few, or tens of, or a
> hundred kilometers away from each other, and each site has limited
> computing resources which could be a small cluster. Application layer based
> approach normally would rely on one or several “server”/”broker” to be
> responsible for request handling all over the city. As such “servers” are
> unlikely available on each and every edge site, it introduces additional
> path stretch for data packets requiring delivery to other edge sites first.
> Such path stretch introduces additional (network and processing) delay
> which could be crucial for short live request flow. On the contrary, the
> network node at the edge is naturally sitting on the data path without
> introducing any additional cost to direct the (explicit/implicit) request
> somewhere else. Also routing system has been proven doing good in such
> distributed manner.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a dyncast (dynamic anycast) work ongoing. It is not exactly same
> as what Linda proposed here, but some relations can be seen, like trying to
> use anycast methodology to access an edge computing, especially
> computational intensive, service. The current discussions are about
> compellingness of the use cases, the deficiency of existing solutions, and
> proposed architecture, not gone very far into what specific routing
> protocols to use yet. A side meeting will be held on Wed 10am CET. You may
> check https://github.com/dyncast/ietf110 for more info.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Yizhou
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Christian Hopps
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:00 AM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Why not leverage Network conditions to optimize
> balancing among multiple App Layer Load Balancers? as proposed by
> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2021, at 7:40 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Christian,
>
>
>
> You said at LSR session today that there might be concern of network
> optimizing ANYCAST traffic to better balance among multiple App Layer Load
> Balancers.
>
> First of all, only the Applications that need to leverage the network
> condition to balance among their multiple Load Balancers will get the
> benefit of path selection that are based on the combination of routing
> distance and other dynamic running status. The networks (e.g. 5G EC Local
> Data Networks)  only optimize the ANYCAST traffic for the registered
> addresses.
>
> The network is already responsible for selecting the shortest path to one
> Application Load Balancer. draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext
> proposes to add additional weight in path selection.
>
>
>
> ANYCAST makes it possible to dynamically load balance across server
> locations based on network conditions. With multiple servers having the
> same ANYCAST address, it eliminates the single point of failure and
> bottleneck at the application layer load balancer that has the shortest
> routing distance. Another benefit of using ANYCAST address is removing the
> dependency on how UEs get the IP addresses for their Applications. Some UEs
> (or clients) might use stale cached IP addresses for extended period.
>
>
>
> Network service providers can even offer this as a value added service,
> making network information more useful to deliver services to applications.
>
> Isn’t it a win-win approach for both network service providers and the
> applications owners?
>
>
>
> As WG member,
>
>
>
> It's not a win when their network fails.
>
>
>
> At a high level I think the idea of a smart network is interesting. I
> don't have good initial feelings though about trying to achieve that by
> adding application load based metrics into the routing protocol. There's
> all sort of layer violations going on there for one, but perhaps more
> importantly, our routing protocols have not been tried and tested over the
> decades with this use in mind.
>
>
>
> One could imagine designing a higher layer distributed load balancing
> application/protocol that utilized routing information though, something
> like that would align more closely with the layering we've been designing
> to all these years. It probably would not rely on anycast exclusively, but
> instead use anycast to talk to a server that implemented this LB protocol
> (something anycast is good at) which would provide a unicast address for
> the requested application, with the ability to adjust (reacquire a new
> unicast address, whatever) as conditions (either at the routing or
> application layer) change through notifications or polling. Just
> brainstorming here, but there are lots of ways one could imagine this
> working.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>
>
> Linda Dunbar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD