Re: [mpls] Fwd: Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377DC12025C; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 C2u4fC4RM-3v; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428AC127136; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id BF63C49E46B6A; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:00:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:00:22 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.92]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.7]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00:14 -0800
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Fwd: Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
Thread-Index: AQHTX06qWtR/Vk4YcUqpcfSTCSmNbKMX/aHA
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:00:14 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268541351BFA4@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <d36c2887-3722-b9ab-76fa-aecca77f0018@gmail.com> <f5a8dedc-a390-cca7-bfa4-e1b39c1c9557@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f5a8dedc-a390-cca7-bfa4-e1b39c1c9557@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.52.40.157]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268541351BFA4sjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Dcqnix1VmFjQC1wXtKtI36e1hkA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Fwd: Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:00:26 -0000

>I would like to ask a fundamental question here.

>Do we need transit counters for only MPLS-SR, or do we need it for MPLS-LDP as well?
Would be good to start with SR-MPLS label stack, including transit nodes – not all LSRs but the Nodal/Adj-Sids as indicated in the SR-Label stack.

>Also WRT the proposal to do ingress collection, if nodal paths are used, that only tells us the approximate path, not the hotspot which I understand to be the original goal.

1.                   Though it would be limited – SR path level stats would be extremely useful – especially slicing use cases where 100’s of thousands of flows gets mapped relatively less number of SR-Paths/Sr-NODAL-ADJ-SID stack.

2.                   If we are fixated on the “hotspot issue” solution – then you *may* get into a more complex solution (both w.r.t RLD & MLDs and with usage of special labels) …
#2 is not new (possible with existing LDP network). But #1 would be a great plus for ST-TE deployments.
--
Uma C.