Re: [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 07 December 2022 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 87BCEC151705 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 22:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 52E1CzwS4InI for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 22:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B400C14CF1F for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 22:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16419 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2022 05:59:27 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 7 Dec 2022 05:59:27 -0000
Message-ID: <0455def9-e1fb-2b8a-3090-2683d695e57b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 15:08:31 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols
Content-Language: en-US
To: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Cc: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, bier@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
References: <Y4ovyV074qa3gLSu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAEeTejLa8sdJVU_2OfTo=ZgWRY-kv_7M=xiR-bLyBEXhSDP=Eg@mail.gmail.com> <e2527c9c-c7d1-c6b7-a067-e5ccbdc7e997@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1PaX-009tgu-Hl@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <c86d7ae6-3dad-04be-9c16-0135cc95fe73@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1Rbe-009zgN-1s@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <643e9272-979a-2a0a-d702-2b63cf0de5c4@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAEeTejJ3yS2fARZNchumfkNyc0cnFfVSW7VdtBaGzhJQ9KmpBg@mail.gmail.com> <85AD093E-05C8-4A6C-8972-9310B8CAE5D5@gmail.com> <d77e4cac-81ff-7a25-73ae-8cb36dc0a8c6@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CA+b+ER=Z6KYt_gcXOV4vty5jr5ADEez_qrB8bSDzuH58nJrbmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=Z6KYt_gcXOV4vty5jr5ADEez_qrB8bSDzuH58nJrbmw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/wVM_wri_6-QH8yr0dUFL1rklWi8>
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: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 06:08:37 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote:

>> As such, if iBGP by TCP mesh without reflectors is not acceptable,

> See RRs were deployed to address three points:
> #1 - Configuration simplicity 
> #2 - Path reduction
> #3 - TCP session reduction

 > In the old days keeping 1000 of TCP connections in custom
 > kernels were an issue.

Are you saying that each router receive 999 copies of
full route (these days, there are 1M routes) information
for iBGP is not a problem?

OTOH, if there are 1000 border routers, configuration
simplicity means to have some automatic mechanism to
generate and install configuration files for the routers,
with which TCP mesh can be maintained automatically
without any added complexity.

					Masataka Ohta