Re: BFD Performance Measurement

Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ashesh@gmail.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 17:51 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 99E00126DD9; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 JM_uqiaO1soH; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 08D521241F5; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x7so6144763qkb.0; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:20 -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=ZbrL0blNTr5uIp7eCwSKD1qo9zD0VjFjIMSN7b47O3U=; b=PQJ1Ww1UPFzJTLqy//oE738/azK0KHvuy/vgX2lK0bkHy58g0eHa1vK/Ztti+B5g1N wyOv7pI4m74dM212ZFeNDOeDloMuDQqP6Sgg2iPpU07gd9BSNaSLd0o47mJSQElIuaa1 jnFO/8JrfABFol+QdtN5M9atil9BB/3tsPv6Tf6bmiDjuOGTFTvBUya+qC7PqlH/67Nt jdtScSYI0Hl5HLXPqC1BtScZiCxa6Nt0WnSj1eF2DZYdBEcY9JFbWMpt4WGphah06FTk Ey8zQkuJTn/I0+WmeLf+3pe4SmyKKm4oGQYZATkiewDKk/p2aHRBAAdwTR/ksIQM6wvi xp9w==
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=ZbrL0blNTr5uIp7eCwSKD1qo9zD0VjFjIMSN7b47O3U=; b=mymT9tg8JK4s8VizBSzabrGB0isPP8fXqJNLRIuKFZGmAlwDXfsvL1qBgm+gvlduZI 8uGOU58GMxgkzmyWkJKBOVIccyZGznKq1MZ8lt9W8Zr1JRxQO+lcYRWfxwWrOHeXC4nI xx3K9of+2m0pWFaAYYkkditlP6Ky77q7pCaCdNjKfEo08121QxEGyCHlPzlAHvjK7ko0 atUFZskGBB8BkZpDJphFsfApxYaTHGm7G8tPDdEQOsRY6H8kYvSq/aDhLQ4eCmRRGjdc X3mfQNk0+py1GnFnSqnloVT5vrIY/WLdwkQjvt/8pJgyBVEtGSQJlx3a3OjPNAlYX78E esXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ2bYZeaI9kmLe54YLmRzM7y5Wrf7YZ7PArvNkZQsT0mzacxV1m SmKh/NlDhDKF0czYnr5HfsI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotmTNqXm8g05nTIm7V0KW+xeu+aOpiKE0uME9Q970Vl6qoVj3Uat3+oR2bWS+3oMqLTcADPMg==
X-Received: by 10.55.68.82 with SMTP id r79mr5856325qka.125.1513705880081; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:20 -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 n64sm9881417qkf.49.2017.12.19.09.51.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:51:19 -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: <20171219174615.GM8708@pfrc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:51:18 -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: <5D73BA08-2200-4387-9FB3-A34C52E567C7@gmail.com>
References: <645E4B77-3D56-41D4-9EFA-0FFF6AFF941E@outlook.com> <20171219172411.GL8708@pfrc.org> <938A3102-0D82-4753-9958-4ED6F95C211E@gmail.com> <20171219174615.GM8708@pfrc.org>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/Ikv0HyFEwaVxaYUXWjq7U-xsVYU>
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 17:51:22 -0000

Same logic as authentication. Either both ends run it or neither end runs it. 

Additionally, dropped frames don’t impact the math as the exchange is just one frame forward and reverse. If any packet is lost, the  particular exchange disappears. This missing exchange should have no impact on the overall algorithm for determining the interval (outside the scope of the document as it’s an implementation detail at the receiver). 

Ashesh

On Dec 19, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

Ashesh,

> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:30:10PM -0500, Ashesh Mishra wrote:
> 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. 

Given that this may run against unknown software or hardware based
implementations, how do you foresee the procedures working to avoid swamping
a slow implementation?  For example, what's the impact of missing one or
more packets carrying this information within the Detection multiplier of
packets allowed to be dropped?

-- Jeff