Re: BFD Performance Measurement

Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@gmail.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mishra.ashesh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD2312D7F5; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 LQsKBcAqDLFs; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 44A46129C6E; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id m59so25065722qte.11; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DIxC56+hbWfzz85znIE93vLjiq7JE3RXKsyN7UMwDF0=; b=g78vEjd/K2w32oM76wOcBBrq+PYYv/nV6z5jtO2hrAuADqJ61W69KVvY6mkrRFgpI/ jNmGYXhTrGEzoD2MHYoxzzU9qwiLTXSJEV4/OblKcOUKtlhLxaij2qMov5NPVMXQvwP2 Fwnz/Afs5lf+ANE6/ZhGWjC60rfin9aaNU/JjD11OnaQ818nL7l6ZB8M5P6WDnnF+kH2 cGnyQHSHpiezAoqOaZO25PQN4KoIm3+whMFiolljFqFfYD58G65nMtXgmB5SnLrKwfg/ brXW2Sre31RywDC4eQV8t6aftBCtIlyZ5B8Duqt8BiBZfr+XyShZAwuLA6KYfzBywmzV AsXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DIxC56+hbWfzz85znIE93vLjiq7JE3RXKsyN7UMwDF0=; b=Gtdi6crn2L9Sb1qq2MSypxwg8e03YmFyEfK1cKeS8xtmGq6qxr/BTtqhv0mw4lhbPx yiFslAcG24nS/nvoQTRQGBOkiVYaiMP8niBLtJvoo4/Ns0K4tjraBcQpD3GKO9tuOUrt wWL16fjAUfUuGq8TECEiRpZO3KyVo3kCJ2eHv3VKmR17GMu4g9Zuq7LSsi+hg4lrguwP VJzFzRoRL/VUzZMMqBbq6f5bhO9mFWwEMFrfjCh4HopZdSfYZNNtSg3dIjS7p/7HdZf5 7L2Q1EsEA4B6OwsiMy3rHCJ0wzuBpqHjV3vvCPBoa0thznxMN1VLdYCBrow0rPDNbdDW 4SPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJLW0ZiGWDyXSIUzJoPt/37J6XXFjJi3x7mxqVQvjAESpjvRbCk PvYMuPQU1fqNzKF/3bvOfSQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovpA8cJqPeMZlFkAJra4xlLMur7mqnzXwhw9XJFhdUbsfM+2BNZyDhST3dlNMGGCjcn3IDReA==
X-Received: by 10.237.33.205 with SMTP id m13mr6247279qtc.131.1513704613240; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (207-38-138-133.s2672.c3-0.avec-ubr2.nyr-avec.ny.cable.rcncustomer.com. [207.38.138.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w39sm10200980qtw.90.2017.12.19.09.30.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: BFD Performance Measurement
From: Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C114)
In-Reply-To: <20171219172411.GL8708@pfrc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:30:10 -0500
Cc: Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@outlook.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, "jhaas@juniper.net" <jhaas@juniper.net>, "draft-am-bfd-performance@ietf.org" <draft-am-bfd-performance@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <938A3102-0D82-4753-9958-4ED6F95C211E@gmail.com>
References: <645E4B77-3D56-41D4-9EFA-0FFF6AFF941E@outlook.com> <20171219172411.GL8708@pfrc.org>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/BZ1wF-wFMTHvFIq2pDKxbHBFepo>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:30:16 -0000

It really depends on the use-case and the implementation. This measurement may be excessive if running at a 3.3ms or 10ms interval, but you don’t run these intervals on anything but the best and most deterministic of links. For links with higher or unpredictable latency, the typical intervals are at least 50msec (typically between 100msec and 500msec). At those rates, the overhead is not significant. 

At the same time, with more software implementations coming to the market, the overhead is smaller compared to the hardware implementations as there is no additional offload to a different engine. 

Ashesh

On Dec 19, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

Ashesh,

I'll take it as a given that there's an implied gripe about a lack of TLVs
for BFD and a push for BFDv2. :-)

The work in here seems reasonable, but does run up against the question I
always must ask: Is this actually useful/usable at high BFD rates?

I understand that a likely scenario (and not documented in the draft) is you
start with a sedate enough transmit interval so as to get your measurements.
But once you have them, I would expect that a poll would be initiated to
utilize faster timers.  Once we get to the fast timers, would the procedures
for handling the timestamps be reasonable to run at that rate?

-- Jeff

> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 01:52:47PM +0000, Ashesh Mishra wrote:
> Hi BFD experts,
> 
> We recently submitted a new individual contribution on BFD Performance Measurement. Please review the document and provide comments.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-am-bfd-performance/
> 
> This document proposes a mechanism to determine the smallest BFD transmit interval that can be supported on the link.  This is achieved by actively measuring the one-way delay for each BFD session and setting the BFD session intervals based on the measured delay. This allows the BFD session to adapt to the fastest rate feasible on the current active path.
> 
> The method described in this proposal is useful in networks where the network latency is high, or varies with time.  Trans-oceanic links and connectivity over geo-synchronous satellites are typical examples of links where the latency is high and the difference in latency on primary and backup paths can be significant. Another use-case is connectivity using satellites in mid-earth orbit (MEO) or low-earth orbit (LEO).  In these systems the one-way delay, while it is low (25msec to 150 msec), varies with time.  This variation, based on various factors, can be as high as 30 msec.  With mobile receivers, such as ships, the delay when using such connectivity can be non-trivial to predict.  This requires an automated method to determine the optimal BFD interval to allow fastest possible recovery in case of failure.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ashesh Mishra
> Mahesh Jethanandani