IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 03 December 2022 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100B1C14CEE1 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfigB_LAHY7v for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6BBC14CEE3 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id u12so12213306wrr.11 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 14:04:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RVlykw22bi1ORVMr4fyxX2oertql3LI6vrZeWUZX7kw=; b=Ar2vA/hfB7rqNXgFuHpOwcUs7AEir9nR7gfzg2E0KwPcSAJ6QX+OgTXpcZgH0tqenY su7Sp02wL5u/kilDsAH6vI3Akn9UjvfrPPBsazFKb2YueJQeV8lNPqudyDVAspln6Nma PGQbLvl21Q4xjX2QHaOvYN3nwua48+Cb/Y/OcUBzkxu0eLNUCV51U/AWEvDh/PkTZ+NQ Iz3+aCO/bfOpLAJFKKQ52o0OSbXcDFKKfaRr6QIiNo6HHQPiBJym9s3OslYw1+Q5bS1H 84aNCxFeq1x9AxSDrqCGCpJ60bBJ3EfH/JLSav0nuOnYFtKI1h+jGHWxskRPipr1EzJc 1HHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=RVlykw22bi1ORVMr4fyxX2oertql3LI6vrZeWUZX7kw=; b=phpxBJvyorlU81hf5OSG9RCpwhSgApIyMAaKRykzALJ9jQgOmA6uO7sVHVZ1rnejrk h/v+QAsxhAtATWgeef6B46dfdfSw3Yp8UDokNc4WPoRj7I2D4jzOg6KBQOltUROUgNJG YFt/DXULlrjNQYEZw3XhF0s0tvRFpNXavSjj7Jh/VpY0fwZqEMrHTDAIi2s8wUedmDCw qG1OQG77EGtr0gfRyV4J+9SwCKD3i22A5q8ZDmAoBX+ynSy91GhGVNghX8uM2WxA9fQa MHJgn44jJmdJa4DRbZ/smhvfj1wekZvTP+w/pR8e4UWXvyZhBNlZujAh8YVMdWfXyqgm qRsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnzKtLSZxFPbA1vx771KkZT6Hjfx0kugJhZhQ9ep7wQS81ocJ+/ 3sYLbzz/W9qj/fGUT1uTonPaAcYdB0En4xrITPop0w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6sTBNao9Mnz3bwkS3YI3PMZMB08dgoYEobrERXD8eQwRMPBtHvtqfsP5uf7IkCj1/KGhK2KHmZMsF1JX3d3Wo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6089:0:b0:241:e85c:f769 with SMTP id w9-20020a5d6089000000b00241e85cf769mr32450472wrt.69.1670105082265; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 14:04:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y4ovyV074qa3gLSu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3cbaf92c-3dc5-01d5-570d-a5ee90f138e0@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3cbaf92c-3dc5-01d5-570d-a5ee90f138e0@kit.edu>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 23:06:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGU74DJ14DdX83xKBQkEOFo+ebdhECK0dM7K7Df+Yx2Og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols
To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, routing-discussion@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a9e6205eef3a44f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/L1K0R5zBnQWmfCOjsJx9cjlH7i8>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General Discussion list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 22:04:48 -0000

Hi,

> I think one has to distinguish where the bottleneck is:
> 1) link bandwidth (link congestion)
> 2) routing message processing (CPU congestion)

Actually it is much more complex than that.

The most often bottlenecks I have seen were either narrow channel into
RE/RP blades at a given router or  drop at ingress when competing with
transit traffic where queuing and data plane were not properly designed to
recognize control plane packets and handle it differently then transit the
moment packet hits the electrons on ingress int.

Thx
r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email