Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing Architecture"

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 09 March 2012 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9945121E808A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:22:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxbugyK1+gN5 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3880321E8088 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:22:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=11547; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331320954; x=1332530554; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=wFGFaEyXSHA3JvoUbqhrZBqGDE1X6EgVIhLv34W3iGM=; b=H07FPbsygJbzxCSFxPNKadRWhV5/i5ld6G732L0c6nymWlXOnEVt8EbC I+VqtBV32/9YZ09MZHl1L+u5jIG6pzTY/ap3aYWj2SCNaDg53LaTmyjA1 JU20K4sKuA7NAQ1BZyBtqtqXjQ5vYoIEJbylK8/tWwZEX/vinWYVcuej8 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAHpXWk+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDhTWnCAGIdIEHggoBAQEDARIBEFYFCwkCEgYdDQICSQ4GEyKHYwQMnAwBjGeSEIoxhTEzYwSIUYx4hWaFQYR1gnKBRg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,559,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="35284025"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2012 19:22:32 +0000
Received: from tky-syasuda-871-tu0.cisco.com (tky-vpn-client-231-14.cisco.com [10.70.231.14]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q29JMUhJ014475; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:22:30 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by tky-syasuda-871-tu0.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:22:31 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by tky-syasuda-871-tu0.cisco.com on Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:22:31 +0900
Subject: Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing Architecture"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL6OX+3j42SpEou1pcVEQEr6BpAVGhvescJrhsprydtdXdEb6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:22:17 +0900
Message-Id: <CF62092D-3CCD-4EBA-9ACF-9F94A4189420@cisco.com>
References: <CAL6OX+0h0bxN9xN_5oP6bqRWGiR4+QFH_SU4HTqiZ4T4D6vVaA@mail.gmail.com> <22317E5E-CC80-42BE-8886-794FF71E66B7@cisco.com> <CAL6OX+3j42SpEou1pcVEQEr6BpAVGhvescJrhsprydtdXdEb6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: 杨术 <yangshu1988@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-29-826419705"
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:22:36 -0000

On Mar 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, 杨术 wrote:

> Hi, Fred Baker, 
> 
> Thanks for your advices.
> 
> We have discussed your draft in our group meeting, because your 
> draft is strongly related with two dimensional routing. Your draft 
> illustrates detaiedly that how to devise a new protocol, that can make 
> forwarding decisions based on destination and source addresses. 

It also explicitly mentions DSCP as an option, and in homenet discussion (might have been offline, I don't remember), Brian Carpenter suggested flow label (although I think that would differ from the random number his current document puts into it). Yes, it has overlaps.

> Our draft differs from yours in that:
> 1. We try to illustrate the huge benefits from deploying two dimensional 
> routing, that makes forwarding decisions based on both destination and 
> source addresses. The network will be more flexible if routers can divert
>  traffic based on source address. Thus, policy routing, traffic engineering,
>  path/link protection, multi-path, multi-homing can be achieved more easily.
>  For example, with two dimensional routing, we can express "deliver traffic 
> from source A towards destination B to router C" explicitly and easily. 

> 2. We focus on the architecture of two dimensional routing. We try to properly 
> divide the whole routing system into several components, and point out how 
> to devise each component to achieve efficiency and consistency.
> 
> 3. We have designed a new forwarding table structure called FIST, and we are
>  developing it based on a commercial router. With one more address to lookup
>  during routing, we believe that the FIB is a key component considering scalability
>  issues. FIST is different with previous FIB structure in that, 1) it has two TCAMs,
>  one stores destination prefixes, the other stores source prefixes; 2) in SRAM,
>  there is a two dimensional table that stores the next hop information. Such that
>  we can achieve fast lookup speed, and avoid explosion problem in TCAM.

That's one implementation approach, and it sounds like it has value. While most routers have some concept of a forwarding information base, the IETF has never particularly commented on how the FIB was structured. That has been viewed as a competitive angle - different implementations might do it different ways with different effects. The last discussion I recall about FIB design was a BOF at IETF 14 or 15 led by Craig Partridge.

When I started working to regularize this, folks back at *my* ranch told me that I was re-inventing Multi-Topology Routing. 

> Shu Yang
>   
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:02 AM, 杨术 wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> We are looking for your comments on the new draft "Two Dimensional IP Routing Architecture".
>>  
>> 	This document describes Two Dimensional IP (TwoD-IP) routing, a new
>> 	Internet routing architecture which makes forwarding decisions based
>> 	on both source address and destination address. This presents a
>> 	fundamental extension from the current Internet, which makes
>> 	forwarding decisions based on the destination address, and provides
>> 	shortest single-path routing towards destination. Such extension
>> 	provides rooms to solve fundamental problems of the past and foster
>> 	great innovations in the future.
>> 	We present the TwoD-IP routing framework and its two underpinning
>> 	schemes. The first is a new hardware-based forwarding table
>> 	structure for TwoD-IP, FIST, which achieves line-speed lookup with
>> 	acceptable storage space. The second is a policy routing protocol
>> 	that flexibly diverts traffic.
>>  
>> 	We plan to give a presentation on this in the upcoming IETF83. The
>> 	draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rtgwg-twod-ip-routing-00.
>>  
>> 	We would really appreciate any comments and questions about the document.
> 
> My first suggestion would be to compare/contrast with 
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-fun-routing-class
>