Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 23 July 2015 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D0D1AD084 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 MPi_1l8peAOo for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (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 66A821A92FC for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so42069341wic.0 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NGU2h/OA9VlB0C6GOG8LzPPdK7AZ0cSAhCEo3Jj0JgA=; b=dd6gpUAaKFipNE5SQ26MWNUxE1AuUO+WAaZ5TrwpLfHQVtq1O4R22Zm9WDGkdBzW8Q fvR/b/64rK70+6MCVEubknFUjpZ4SsusYpdUV1/vFSztmbpILC6rsZSG5ISnKPuAYOf4 Qvav7FxaztXzY7AukvS+BSOjxGFfIf4EJcHRECawZIC7FlIHNJCD41IT2qt+2QcM+TRH s/fQcN0kq6ur2p7GDCY+w7wS4hEXQzZSBBlueSJ0sHWYQvDHIQTwoLsAw6upabTPMdBZ 1rqPhZ67fDra2qNxYMJOyXnALFTXefPRkDNCz9I3t9Ci+IB1fjHyEKT6sdcLhPQZTx9n oZag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.229 with SMTP id u5mr765996wix.92.1437689697091; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F2831F7ADF4@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <DB3PR03MB078098C91E8D3C7DCDCCF8C39D840@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <EA360A7AB9D90D4B9E9173B6D27C371EE3F6038F@MTKMBS61N1.mediatek.inc> <55B11D6D.2040102@pi.nu> <EA360A7AB9D90D4B9E9173B6D27C371EE3F607FB@MTKMBS61N1.mediatek.inc> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F2831F7ADF4@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:14:56 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DO0EReDrzFSlSIy42viOykAVZ9g
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERm2bpYR4y9_8c7tZD9QCToe8EY2HEgYiPdXDGuDaffBAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428e40b14538051b9237f9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/2OIkQIT-dILdMNo9IrPYtxPXkfg>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:15:03 -0000

Hi Shahram,

This is first time I see that we judge what should the RFC contain by using
sniffer on the wire ... but as I pointed out this is besides the point.

Control plane is different and what currently defined primitives require
control plane to provide workarounds for the missing forwarding action.

Moreover think further ... look at I2RS and MPLS YANG models. Would it
contain something which is not in the MPLS architecture RFC .. I doubt as
by procedural requirements consulting normative reference section it will
be blocked.

As a consequence it is no longer just local RP/RE to data plane trick .. we
are not for new architectures impacting remote controllers which will need
to use concepts of incoming/outgoing labels when setting data plane using
global/path labels.

Is this sound design by any means ?

Cheers,
R.










On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Focusing on just the data-plane, do you agree that externally observable
> behavior of a router that does "no-swap" is same as "swap" to the same
> label.
> If so why do you think a standards RFC for data-plane is required? since
> standards RFC should be something that is externally visible outside of a
> box.
>
>
> Thanks
> Shahram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Qu
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:55 PM
> To: Loa Andersson; Alexander Vainshtein; Stewart Bryant; Andrew G. Malis;
> S. Davari
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much
> does it really save?
>
> It seems I mislead folks from my previous mail.
>
> Please let me rephrase my points. :-)
>
> >From a ASIC design engineer point of view,  I wanted to say swap and
> no-swap is
> Very different meaning.
>
> As long as there is a defined swap operation, I have to design the "swap"
> completely
> In ASIC logic.
>
> If there is a "no-swap" operation defined, then my ASIC engineer will
> implement it differently
> than swap.
>
> I used "TTL" and EXP handling as example.  Since the label is to be
> "swap"ed with a new LABEL stack,
> then the design of SWAPING need to consider TTL handling such as
> 1) just decrement of original TTL or 2) using a brand new TTL, such as
> using local new register stored value to
>   Fill the sawp'ed new label stack.
>
> And in reality,  the ASIC may chose a HW adjacency storage which has
> complete label stack space,  SW is resonspile
> To file them up to fulfill so called "swap" operation.
>
> When standard defines a "no-swap" operation,  ASIC engineer would
> implement such operation completely differently in
> Real RTL design with regarding how to handling TTL or EXP.
>
> If I am putting NETWORK meaning aside for the moment,  the wording in RFC
> about "swap" and "no-swap" is already making difference
> to inplementor already.  So that is what I meant that as RFC writer, we
> should be as clear as possible.
>
>
>
> That is first of my points.
>
> My next point is that:
>
> As matter of fact,  "no-swap" operation has huge difference in the
> following implementation than "swap".
>
> For example:
>
> When without "no-swap" operation defined, in order to achieve "no-swap"
> result, as you suggested,
> I would simply copy "in-label" and write it back to "out-label", but to
> HW, it means that
> for different in-label, I must use different HW adjacency to support
> "no-swap" result.
> So it will be 1-1 mapping of using adjacencies of HW resource even they
> share the rest of rewrite
> Information such out going port and DMAC/SMAC etc.
>
>
> However if we do have a "no-swap" operation defined,  then I can share no
> matter of how many in-coming
> Label with just "ONE" HW adjacence to rewrite the in-coming packets.
>
> The adjacency instruction would simply just be "no operation on label
> value, decrement TTL" and using
> "out_port, DMAC, SMAC"  for all the incoming packet with different labels.
>
> This is huge saving in terms of implementation when "no-swap" is defiend
> as a MPLS opearation option for
> a ASIC design engineer..
>
> Lastly, I still personally believe,  the network meaning of "swap" and
> "no-swap" can't be treated the same.
> As Robert pointed out,  SR also has "CONTINUE" operation as well,  why SR
> keep that operation if we thing
> SWAP is good to cover all cases including "CONTINUE" ?
>
> The local implementation may use the "same" way to meet two different
> requirements does NOT mean they
> Are the same, so from standard RFC point of view, we should not leave it
> as it is,  I feel when use
> Case arises, we should add the clarification such as this draft to clarify.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:59 PM
> To: Andrew Qu; Alexander Vainshtein; Stewart Bryant; Andrew G. Malis; S.
> Davari
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much
> does it really save?
>
> Andrew,
>
> On 2015-07-23 16:01, Andrew Qu wrote:
> > I don't agree no-swap is the same as "swap with same value".
> >
> > I think if standard adds a no-swap operation, that would be great for
> > people to implement
> >
> > Either SW or HW.
> >
> > Once the label is defined as swap, I need to consider
> >
> > 1)TTL
> >
> > Copy payload TTL ? or using const_value
> >
> > 2)QoS (pipe mode or not)
> >
> > If pipe mode => then I need to do something
> >
> > If not=> then I need to do something else.
> >
> > However if it is really a "no-swap",  then it is very clear for HW/SW
> > to implement such operation.
> >
> > I don't need to consider any part of above cases.
>
> I've a little bit ambivalent (mostly thought this is a no go) about this
> draft, bur if we say that no-swap and not considering TTL and QOS, then
> this definitely a no go!
>
> /Loa
> >
> > I don't think swaping a same value label is NOT the same as "no-swap"
> > at all.
> >
> >  From Standard point of view, we should NOT leave ambiguity here at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > *From:*mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alexander
> > Vainshtein
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:05 PM
> > *To:* Stewart Bryant; Andrew G. Malis; S. Davari
> > *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how
> > much does it really save?
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Thumb typed on my LG,
> > Sasha
> >
> > ------ Original message ------
> > *From: *Stewart Bryant
> > *Date: *21/07/2015 17:58
> > *To: *Andrew G. Malis;S. Davari;
> > *Cc: *mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>;
> > *Subject:*Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how
> > much does it really save?
> >
> > This draft proposes architectural changes, and as we can show that
> > these changes are not needed, in my view, this draft should not go
> > forward.
> >
> > - Stewart
> >
> >
> > On 21/07/2015 09:02, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> >
> >     As there are no architectural or protocol changes or IANA
> >     considerations, this draft should be informational if it goes
> >     forward (it currently says "standards track").
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >
> >     Andy
> >
> >     On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:52 PM, S. Davari  <davarish@yahoo.com
> >     <mailto:davarish@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Eric
> >
> >     I agree no standard change is required since this is a local
> >     optimization issue.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >     Shahram
> >
> >
> >     > On Jul 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net
> <mailto:erosen@juniper.net>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >> On 7/20/2015 2:07 PM, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >     >> The new swapped labels (The outgoing  label that replaces the
> >     >> incoming label) need to be stored in a table. Using this draft
> >     >> reduces the number of swapped labels that needs to be stored,
> >     >> regardless of  implementation. Don't you agree?
> >     >
> >     > No.  If you notice that the incoming label needs to be 'replaced'
> by an outgoing label of the same value, you could just make the rewrite
> string shorter, so it won't overwrite the top label on the stack.  This
> seems to be what the draft suggests, but it could  be done as an
> optimization for the particular case where the
> >     incoming and outgoing labels have the same value.  You could do this
> >     today, as a local implementation optimization. There doesn't seem to
> >     be any interop issue or any change to the data plane semantics.
> >     >
> >     >> It also reduces the configuration and management of the new
> swapped labels.
> >     >
> >     > We're not discussing whether there are any advantages to the use
> of domain-wide labels.  We're discussing whether the use of domain-wide
> labels requires a change in the forwarding plane architecture.  I just
> don't see that it does.
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > mpls mailing list
> >     >mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
> >     >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     mpls mailing list
> >     mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >
> >     mpls mailing list
> >
> >     mpls@ietf.org  <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > For corporate legal information go to:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> > ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ******************** The
> > information contained in this e-mail message (including any
> > attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or
> > otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended
> > to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use,
> > dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this
> > e-mail (including its
> > attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may
> > be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or
> > believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
> > sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all
> > copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system,
> > and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person.
> Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************
> The information contained in this e-mail message (including any
> attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
> exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be
> conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination,
> distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its
> attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may
> be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or
> believe
> that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of
> this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
> disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>