Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
"Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Mon, 17 March 2008 10:05 UTC
Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E3628C262; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfRdSV2un4Ly; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DCB3A6D17; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225FB3A6B89 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X0RhzHJTIZiO for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EDF3A6D17 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m2HA2pJp014041; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:02:57 +0100 (MET)
From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
To: "'Geib, Ruediger'" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
References: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0706181835@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> <RrmbUrJK.1205679770.1867150.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF641B0@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> <000001c88809$b2e73840$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF6423C@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:02:46 +0100
Message-ID: <001301c88816$114dab60$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1CF6423C@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AciIBF++zKz17E/GQcib+W/rjB17BgABJ68gAABXALAAAifOMA==
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:02:57 +0100 (MET)
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Ruediger I will try to explain this more clearly. Here are the assumptions: * In the PCN domain we assume that ECMP routing is possible! * ingress-eggress-aggregate can contain flows that are passing through one path or more paths (when ECMP routing is used). * routers are currently dropping packets randomly. Thus marked and unmarked packets will be dropped randomly * When excess rate measurements are used, the triggering of admission control and flow termination are done at the egress by using the CLE. One example of this trigger is: CLE > 1%. Note that CLE = marked/(unmarked + marked). This means that if this trigger is not activated while a severe congestion occurs in the PCN domain, then the operation of the PCN domain will completely collapse. My statement is: If the routers do not preferentially drop marked packets then the PCN domain operation, even in corner case and misconfiguration situations, is more robust and more stable than in the situation that the router is preferentially dropping marked packets. The below example show such a corner case! I will describe two situations: Situation 1: Consider that an ingress-egress-aggregate due to ECMP routing it includes flows that are passing from at least two paths. Assume that path1 supports a maximum bandwidth capacity of C. Now consider that the maximum bandwdith capacity of path2 is 15*C. Consider also that both paths are fully utilized. Consider that preferentially marked packets are dropped and that path2 fails. Now assume that all (maximum) traffic passing through path2 will be rerouted through path1. If a bottleneck router located in path1, say Rbott, is misconfigured (i.e., from the point of view of having wrongly too high configured-admissible-rate value), or even if it is well configured, then it can be possible that CLE measured at the egress cannot reach 1%. Note that CLE = marked packets/ (marked packets + unmarked packets). This is because Rbott will just allow an excess rate to pass through that is equal to: C - configured-admissible-rate. The rest of the marked packets, so the rest of the excess rate, will be dropped by Rbott, since this router is preferentially dropping marked packets. Furthermore, note that due to the ECMP routing flows that are belonging to the same ingress-egress-aggregate and that are passing through another path, than path1, which is not congested, will forward traffic towards the egress node that will be unmarked. This will mean that the CLE > 1% will not be triggered, this will mean that the flow termination will not be triggered and that the operation of the PCN domain will collapse completely. Situation 2: Now consider that the router just operates as currently, i.e., no preferential drop, randomly dropping marked and unmarked packets. Consider also that the two paths described in Situation 1 above are used, ECMP routing is used, and that they are fully utilized. Assume also that path2 fails and that the path2 traffic is rerouted on path1. Now the CLE value will have a higher probability of reaching the triggering value of 1%. This is because the routers in path1 will drop randomly marked and unmarked packets. It is more certain that in this case the CLE will reach 1% due to the following reason. In this example it is assumed that the maximum bandwidth capacity supported by path2 is 15*C. This means that after rerouting the traffic from path2 into path1, the ratio between marked packets and unmarked packets that are passing thorugh path1 can be equal or higher than 16. Note that the routers in path1 will mark the excess rate above C, thus 16 * C (i.e., the rerouted traffic from path2) as marked. The above observation holds also for the situation that the routers are preferentially dropping unmarked packets. Thus when routers are preferentially dropping marked packets the robustness of the PCN domain operation is decreasing and in some cases it severely decreases, which could cause the complete collapse of the PCN domain operation. Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com] > Sent: maandag 17 maart 2008 9:42 > To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting > > Hi Georgios, > > PCN is designed for deployment in traffic engineered > networks. Please decribe, how to engineer a high performance > carrier backbone and then review the assumptions your > discussion is based on. > > Regards, > > Rudiger > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian@cs.utwente.nl] > | Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:34 AM > | To: Geib, Rüdiger > | Cc: pcn@ietf.org > | Subject: RE: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting > | > | Hi Ruediger > | > | What do you mean? > | Do you mean that you do not want to discuss corner cases > (ECMP related > | cases) that could > | collapse the PCN domain operation? > | What I am saying is that if the routers do not preferentially drop > | marked packets then the PCN domain operation is more robust > and more > | stable than in the situation that the router is preferentially > | dropping marked packets. > | > | Are you saying that this statement is not right? > | > | > | Best regards, > | Georgios > | > _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
- [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN mee… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- [PCN] [Fwd: RE: Concensus questions from Thursday… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Anna Charny (acharny)
- [PCN] Fw: Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Wei Gengyu
- [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus questi… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] On pcn and overloads (was: Concensus qu… toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- [PCN] Georgios's example philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… Michael Menth
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN… philip.eardley