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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 B03CF1200B9; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:23:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 n0Z5usuira7G; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:23:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB42126C22; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:23:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14318; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510770227; x=1511979827; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=9/d7Ddr5LQ5B8CP8zUbkY6okc2mqbDDWK+56TUCfZPY=; b=U/BchFYIMAMdNhluiduEjeb3/OTjcpunBRDp58au/l7KEACMg6IUCABe 2ZPCxeSpzi7hW1VpVu7ZiAwkqDQU4MTHgXs4c9zeS2mXCt2EMaEza5gSL a+TKu5aYLrwA4f+rDcLMZ/Y+injnWVJC/KlV8TdsRtMcrrrBP55nWpA5g M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CcAACkhQxa/4UNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJEcmRuJweDeIofjyCBfYhbiDmFSYIRCiOFGAIahHQ/GAEBAQEBAQEBAWsohR4BAQEEI2YCAQgRAQIBAisCAgIfERcGCAIEARKJQEwDFRCpYIInJocWDYNJAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDNIIHgVWCEoMBgmuCTYJ1MYIyBaF6PQKHa4gghHmTRIxvOohYAhEZAYE4AR84QoEyehV2AYI2glwcGYFOd4p/gREBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,399,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="321059467"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2017 18:23:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (xch-rtp-016.cisco.com [64.101.220.156]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAFINj2J027155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:23:45 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) by XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (64.101.220.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:23:44 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com ([64.101.220.158]) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com ([64.101.220.158]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:23:44 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
Thread-Index: AQHTXiwz/U6wjSXHpUCqipi1uzSRh6MWFSgA
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:23:44 +0000
Message-ID: <3B1EE673-044F-4E47-9C56-6FF360905C58@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmUHAkuA3o-LpHhMwCbkh0k+emt9OZ3B8Njj2h=jaasTZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUHAkuA3o-LpHhMwCbkh0k+emt9OZ3B8Njj2h=jaasTZw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.151.137]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3B1EE673044F4E479C566FF360905C58ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/UO1xz-UikWRK_JsO8G1Ktp0d5qU>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:23:50 -0000

Hi,

This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, which states:
“SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.”

In addition to creating states at transit and egress nodes, the procedure also affects the data plane and makes it unscalable. It also makes controller job much harder and error prune. In summary, I find the procedure very complex and unscalable.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM
To: "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi Shraddha,
thank you for very well written and thought through draft. I have these questions I'd like to discuss:

  *   Have you thought of using not one special purpose label for both SR Path Identifier and SR Path Identifier+Source SID cases but request two special purpose labels, one for each case. Then the SR Path Identifier would not have to lose the bit for C flag.
  *   And how you envision to collect the counters along the path? Of course, a Controller may query LSR for all counters or counters for the particular flow (SR Path Identifier+Source SID). But in addition I'd propose to use in-band mechanism, perhaps another special purpose label, to trigger the LSR to send counters of the same flow with the timestamp out-band to the predefined Collector.
  *   And the last, have you considered ability to flush counters per flow. In Scalability Considerations you've stated that counters are maintained as long as collection of statistics is enabled. If that is on the node scope, you may have to turn off/on the collection to flush off some old counters. I think that finer granularity, per flow granularity would be useful for operators. Again, perhaps the flow itself may be used to signal the end of the measurement and trigger release of counters.
Regards,
Greg