Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth**

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B8E12084E; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MSqNhE46kxme; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 53F66120895; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id d5so320873lja.10; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z1RIHUegn/TPAEF52AtpK18jCxF7tnb5MwEogmA1+lM=; b=dFYB2PzGWLJJXNB6QLx3K/4qkspJRarEB+CnuZk4Pv8U2UCh6SKHnt6zqXCIMRet1Y KSViEFm6aBQclPk1CYUhuMUnKAI9/JAaI3rhkrhqMZoo80tAaSupS8d7ijDVudZvxv3u J2Rv1FT8ppd7OMJ9KnM7sIakLbp8Rt7bVgWxX7WEIDi8PSBp/ULbFtwHnIuOtzuwvzGT HEdzJTFWKUr2fuPej8+RfbAJnfumdTgxq+V3ZU9RpbyZpm32lnM0LqI2SLrZoHkSpSqN rTYP/0XMxsPN1zsgiuEc8+63vbYFMRF98XcVJkOuiB75v0PqSa/n4G0BFV36CnvIMZWy gVvg==
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=z1RIHUegn/TPAEF52AtpK18jCxF7tnb5MwEogmA1+lM=; b=IRN8/kcdDZlTgmXlw9lDlzeJCC3M4rzoqGuppTMp/i0/CyM8VgYxkiHAxKKptVuMtK T/jY+Y0hIrBCHc4wIuyakOHs+/q8comZ5KvWSH/EBjn8Be9g95K5f8osveF6peLecFz6 +XYfMF+eqFKdsCKNgrQY8Q9Jq8Q/ebI9b9Wb30AElzaALVkzwxBYyKO7iMFrgGAFZ4G0 jrdk+zFOtFCDC0NIbmpnKLdaxT1qf7eWwbXoNhtoHArCKseiU1w66IDqXi/B4gKc4WwJ CBT5sOv/inWTvLBjD7eqys2HeUuxhWhjMy7Si3BKmnoGllQtM7qTwS1SRoaAXI0ljhGF aeUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWMFUY28pvBA3RpHquFOplFw6jgcfBSo7gAZGYMN/u0szTvZvPg smdlpVCle4Y4p5k5TOlxrElLWbuaPoH/VF99hw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzkMHF/WO746Ixu0SWjLzw6WY04PzFkkMRcD+uV72XUTC6abUM/zRKUCrzfOcdt33p68NFOu+oOhzvisaCrXOw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3c14:: with SMTP id j20mr140170lja.84.1568647808518; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAB75xn5CPpoo=SWGfiDS+jQQ0pr1Z7HeHKjx9prGzb6tH9YxbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB75xn6jiNGePOAat_ET-JsPsvuouo8d651GrdjswPjC7OYPWQ@mail.gmail.com> <016c01d56c82$903a3620$b0aea260$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <016c01d56c82$903a3620$b0aea260$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:29:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6ehuyri9aPNNA19unOy9yoOj_i7fob9bRN0EYZWK41bpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Farrel Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000678da40592ad478e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3NtH-QDGqD7X2QDZoNDl6fnNZBY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth**
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:30:17 -0000

Hi Dhruv,
If the node is overloaded, it may not be able to send the notification, may
be too busy completing the work. "SHOULD" seems reasonable for this
notification as well.

Thanks Adrian for your view.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:33 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Top post, historic view.
>
> IIRC the reason for not requiring a Notification in the case of overload
> was that the process of sending a Notification might contribute to the
> overload. And, furthermore, that there might be an attack that leverages
> the need to send a Notification to perpetuate the overload.
>
> I take no position on this: just reporting what is in my memory.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: 16 September 2019 12:21
> To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>rg>; pce@ietf.org
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; Farrel
> Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>;
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth**
>
> Hi again!
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barry, WG,
> >
> > I saw the DISCUSS [1] in the datatracker but for some reason the email
> > never landed in my inbox or the list [2]. I am manually posting it
> > here -
> >
> > ====
> >
> > Discuss (2019-09-16)
> >
> > Thanks for another clear document.  There are some "SHOULD" key words
> > in one section that I would like to discuss, and that I think we ought
> > to be able to resolve without much difficulty:
> >
> > — Section 5.7 —
> >
> > There are various “SHOULD”s in this section, and I have the same
> > comment about all of them: BCP 14 says, about “SHOULD”, that “there
> > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> > carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”  I see no
> > guidance here to help the reader understand what such circumstances
> > and implications are, so I can’t see how an implementer can evaluate
> > the situation.  Can you provide any help here?
> >
> > ====
> >
>
> I checked the base RFC for PCEP - RFC 5440 where notifications are
> first defined. They do not use MUST for sending notification in the
> PCE overload case [1].
>
> Leaving that aside, in case of auto-bandwidth feature, this
> notification is important for scaling. I am inclined to change it to
> MUST as suggested.
>
> Co-authors, WG, please speak up if you disagree!!
>
> I have incorporated all other comments in the working copy.
>
> Diff:
> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.14
>
> > Comment (2019-09-16)
> >
> > Again, these are purely editorial comments, which need no detailed
> > response; please just consider them.
> >
> > — Section 1 —
> >
> >    Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established
> >    with a certain bandwidth may require to adjust the bandwidth reserved
> >    in the network dynamically.
> >
> > “may require adjustment of the bandwidth”
> >
> >    This is similar to
> >    the Passive stateful PCE model, while the Passive stateful PCE uses
> >    path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses
> >    report/update mechanism.
> >
> > NEW
> >    This is similar to
> >    the Passive stateful PCE model: while the Passive stateful PCE uses
> >    a path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses a
> >    report/update mechanism.
> > END
> >
> >    This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support Auto-
> >    Bandwidth feature in a Active stateful PCE model
> >
> > NEW
> >    This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support an Auto-
> >    Bandwidth feature in an Active stateful PCE model
> > END
> >
> > — Section 2.3 —
> >
> >       This value indicates how many times
> >       consecutively, the percentage or absolute difference
> >
> > Add a comma after “times”.
> >
> > — Section 3 —
> >
> >    The PCEP speaker supporting this document must have a mechanism
> >
> > “A PCEP speaker”.
> >
> >    o  It is required to identify and inform the PCC, which LSPs are
> >       enabled with Auto-Bandwidth feature.  Not all LSPs in some
> >       deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the
> >       real-time bandwidth usage but be constant as set by the operator.
> >
> > NEW
> >    o  It is necessary to identify and inform the PCC which LSPs have
> >       the Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled.  In some deployments, not
> >       all LSPs would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the
> >       real-time bandwidth usage, but would rather be constant as set
> >       by the operator.
> > END
> >
> > — Section 4.1 —
> >
> >    The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including
> >    zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design
> >    and planning.
> >
> > NEW
> >    The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including
> >    zero).  In practice, it can be set to an expected value based on
> design
> >    and planning.
> > END
> >
> > — Section 4.2 —
> >
> >    When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate
> >    is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be
> >    configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the
> >    PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP.  The traffic rate
> >    samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the
> >    Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the
> >    default value as 24 hours).
> >
> > NEW
> >    When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate
> >    is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval by the PCC, when the
> >    PCC is the head-end node of the LSP.  The sample interval can be
> >    configured by an operator, with a default value of 5 minutes.
> >
> >    The traffic rate samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval
> >    period (in the Up or Down direction).  The period can be configured by
> >    an operator, with a default value of 24 hours.
> > END
> >
> >    The PCC, in-charge of calculating the
> >    bandwidth to be adjusted, can decide to adjust the bandwidth
> >
> > Remove both commas.
> >
> >    Only if the difference between the
> >    current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth
> >    reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold
> >    (percentage or absolute value) (which can be configured by an
> >    operator and the default as 5 percentage), the LSP bandwidth is
> >    adjusted (upsized) to the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw).
> >
> > I’m sorry: I can’t made any sense out of this text and, thus, can’t
> > suggest a fix.  Please try rephrasing this.  When you do, please make
> > it more than one sentence, and please avoid consecutive parenthesized
> > phrases, which are awkward.
> >
> >    However, longer
> >    adjustment-interval can result in an undesirable effect
> >
> > “a longer”
> >
> >    To avoid this, the
> >    Auto-Bandwidth feature may pre-maturely expire the adjustment-
> >    interval and adjust the LSP bandwidth
> >
> > “prematurely”, with no hyphen.
> > “adjustment interval”, with no hyphen.
> >
> > — Section 5.1 —
> >
> >    o  The PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in
> >
> > “A PCEP speaker”
> >
> >    o  If the PCEP speaker that supports the extensions defined in this
> >
> > “If a PCEP speaker supports”
> >
> > — Section 5.2 —
> >
> >    Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs.
> >
> > “specifications”
> >
> >    If sub-TLVs are not present, the
> >    default values as specified in this document are used or otherwise
> >    based on the local policy are assumed.
> >
> > I can’t make sense of that sentence; please re-phrase it.
> >
> > — Section 5.2.3.2 —
> >
> >    o  Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
> >       ignored on receipt.
> >
> > Why is this “SHOULD”, when other reserved values have been “MUST”?
> >
> > (Same comment in 5.2.3.4, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, and 5.2.5.4.)
> >
> > ====
> >
> > [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/ballot/
> > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>