Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 02 April 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 D3F493A105A for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=raszuk.net
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 Wu3NOhvd9WgN for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) (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 1A15B3A1BC5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id f52so5340340otf.8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Yi2afnkR0Px09bagBoI4+HMx98d9+I8Jlb6YmsiYVdI=; b=Jjo3js61eEhfsTbtb/NGcUpYUytM6OAemNkqdHVhIEEZ7IODORovVElX9dNHZnu0H8 IMcFzqetMCxYT3CYLHtrqMBzNlZfBQyLUU+Ws5jGm6JWkVmbfAB3Ia7Kvv4vbte0UfSs 0v71SP+VUtuAcj/L+sXIeJUd4WM9rpjFZS/YUf5ChmYDtSln2QrmblQzz1cEOHmuco1u 3YmgA0d5MAKNtO34pt8Li/sEjwaP/D7QfWSsFwYbvtU7iFCTPwkTdq0Z2rDtNYG+Rydn +4iFXDvt0aWn+ZGtlL3RlEG2k2snA22ZiX7I29GNQK0otGjqEpFwiVf73mSs91z+1EKX pI3w==
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=Yi2afnkR0Px09bagBoI4+HMx98d9+I8Jlb6YmsiYVdI=; b=ny6ag8iKWp/sg/KtcUqCV+P7rxoiEN2b2Xu/MOO2buHRcMAklCW6NiQNokIEid3HOK XFyRu9lt24mmecEYsFy21WOocHaVAYzPDc8TTbUTgrHVInOp10sV2AJf/eRAAqW1Xhle ZWVME+S4KRttFfpieCawHda6Q7YM5kFk1pU6nUPxVc/zs70m4LZA4NBmQKXHJRVod/ca T6THV/CS7VrNNQIigDq8+AZx0LyKNYFyVJu0A21LkEpZsJm0jaPSHuFqPL+2eYgp1lQz /1jq+jpqK9rUG+K5miyTss8xQhS2OnhpPUotvnRHVDuIFQiwDN9BUrreHqP3x2M4X+Ly P7OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY5XdiDZDy/IA4lJ1CsLYPYYxkrUU6iYl9Cpx87p1RlmkR9oEC7 TMVhstBXxB42GcCf4E1nyyp/4JsiWSDqx6tZhUAzWhUrWhk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJg5Sl2bdl1nm7JASNCb98XIfHETB90ehkrwB7y5UfzCm30RLNXXBVjcAAr4iMbrY9lnavSeBJIYyoxFf3CiTA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1556:: with SMTP id l22mr4532298otp.61.1585868613087; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DB1AD4@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB4619925BEF83B0C4512DD284C1C90@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <06e8443210924ac788c40fa15972cbdd@huawei.com> <C987B657-64D1-4C70-B471-ED9F1266B990@cisco.com> <3948044C-0CC9-4AE8-8541-4D23A5DF396E@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DF089E@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB46197F8C43B3200B07641838C1C60@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGsVkws0sTw4RRdb_SdWvsuh+2Dxc-upXqT2_pmpO_+Lg@mail.gmail.com> <6930807B-2FF0-4A5C-AD39-D05345C37A5E@chopps.org> <MW3PR11MB461955420610E933ACC44BC4C1C60@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHoTbDzZrA1ttPsdD5Tk7TADaR=ex5WGF=6+X3X1utoHg@mail.gmail.com> <bd193457-956c-47b0-a50b-8d1778e8349a@Spark> <CAOj+MMGuRHVoJ3ez4nQ3O87J4U+-+yabYWeA1AEfj1UGAbPp7w@mail.gmail.com> <DD4DAC78-3A51-4E8D-802B-9FB515F86AF1@chopps.org> <CAOj+MMHa4J-619P6TWjSohB4yP3O5VPaq42VuAzNUmzbXsFcfA@mail.gmail.com> <4dcafca3-9211-e185-cd69-609cc6cb606f@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4dcafca3-9211-e185-cd69-609cc6cb606f@joelhalpern.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 01:03:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGSjb2Medd_wkV314pYrm_96GD5urxw5Qs34hMZt5BXMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058048105a256cf13"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/pKkuTvPn_cpSfRuj7ug1FiRxtQk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02
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, 02 Apr 2020 23:03:37 -0000

Hi Joel,

> Robert, you seem to be asking that we pass full information about the
> dynamic network state to all routers

No not at all.

Only TE headends need this information.

To restate ... I am not asking to have a synchronized input to all routes
in the domain such that their computation would be consistent.

I am only asking for TE headends to be able to select end to end paths
based on the end to end inband telemetry data. I find this a useful
requirement missing from any of today's operational deployments.

Many thx,
R.






On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:59 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Robert, you seem to be asking that we pass full information about the
> dynamic network state to all routers so that they can, if needed, serve
> as fully intelligent path computation engines.  If you want to do that,
> you will need more than just the telemetry.  You will need the demands
> that are coming in to all of those routers, so that you can make global
> decisions sensibly.
> Which is why we use quasi-centralized path computation engines.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 4/2/2020 6:16 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >
> >      > If you consider such constrains to provide reachability for
> >     applications you will likely see value that in-situ telemetry is
> >     your friend here. Really best friend as without him you can not do
> >     the proper end to end path exclusion for SPT computations..
> >
> >     [as wg member] Are you thinking that shifting traffic to a router is
> >     not going to affect it's jitter/drop rate?
> >
> >
> > Well this is actually the other way around.
> >
> > First you have your default topology. They you are asked to
> > construct new one based on applied constrains.
> >
> > So you create complete TE coverage and start running end to end data
> > plane probing over all TE paths (say SR-TE for specific example). Once
> > you start collecting the probe results you can start excluding paths
> > which do not meet your applied constraints. And that process continues.
> >
> > To your specific question - It is not that unusual where routers degrade
> > their performance with time and in many cases the traffic is not the
> > cause for it but internal bugs and malfunctions.
> >
> > Best,
> > R.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lsr mailing list
> > Lsr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >
>