IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 16 November 2017 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 8FA8B12741D; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:35:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 BxifghU0V4jC; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:35:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6E24127ABE; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id vAG5ZFnP007605; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:35:15 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-8924.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.137.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id vAG5ZACx007571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:35:12 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Mach Chen' <mach.chen@huawei.com>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: 'draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths' <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, 'spring' <spring@ietf.org>, 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>, "'Zafar Ali (zali)'" <zali@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:35:09 -0000
Message-ID: <12fc01d35e9c$ad540470$07fc0d50$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_12FD_01D35E9C.AD55B220"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdNei+Ardi16EuikTr2dKgjgCIeCeQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23468.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.671-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.671-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nI1cAR4k0HZxtRSiTWsxtZF+9R8v7nzmTJDl9FKHbrnjsTquy0JRiwSn NaPnYUmG1bF35LqVSKlFnqmZGIwtbHtnPxQhmlj7syNb+yeIRArkDn63kIRTLUm6sVQE3ZzHnfG OuJbiZr8X9Ql/4+d3jkmlX2scVfeP7a7m7fE5C+HBtFDYGmaWKm79evoIpeI30pZKESwinxOekF Z5VzCMoF632KLJ/vqKoSAYJH6B6vYiHZrZAcDtw5cDhniv1q1zU+A7YkpDJ1goDMZ3xV44iHVw2 xxcZthfnb+0a0qIQCQpJvJLpbPfP2hKBwPmHsPFu72KpAktHS+2InV6AaP6lZUhT38IzfaR7KBB Z2QBUyxPifNxprH2cuulrrvUsCg/hxaO3bw3PjDjrayXo0o3MIfsPVs/8Vw6EfKzCAntKpA6JpZ 8BnIjEheWHY3LKnzHtF3RbBlJV000nIDKoCZxv3YaZ/XR5khWqtdEZ93MF44VUBxl7PcYInii5k SOR4tGVCir/P/HlBCexSLBWoM4BFISCbZIzCBZIj0zFI5DoJJeCrB32KOS0H6cp973lFkJS/4a/ 2DJkv9u1m6K/uMtBRQAXi4Ga9GRHxPMjOKY7A+DGx/OQ1GV8qYdro8t3UQW+gtHj7OwNO2K65U5 atRZ+TH/0oLlij2k6Dc5kBugCP49evq7pDa5uIcCm+ojJQoK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/OOTmBPEHTZuyd5N5mqQIZGPxokU>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] redux: 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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:35:36 -0000

Let's unpick a couple of things...
 
1. This work is not talking about per-flow accounting, it is talking about peer SR-path accounting
2. ipfix on its own does not cut it because you still have to put a marker in the packets
3. Yes, SR assumes there is no (i.e. zero) state per SR-path in the network
But this third point causes a tension: we want to use SR because it is good, but we want to do transit node diagnostics because (frankly) they are necessary.
To get the full picture of why they are necessary read the draft, or consider ECMP.
 
This discussion will not be unfamiliar to those who tried to debug LDP networks.
 
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email