Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Thu, 29 February 2024 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 01781C14F60A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 w5Ikg6L--UnJ for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A4BC14CF12 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4TllKG53LKz8XrRQ for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:49:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4TllJh3V2Qz4xVbs; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:49:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app02.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.116]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 41T8nCjD062252; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:49:12 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:49:15 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:49:15 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa65e0450b79c-cfb23
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202402291649153033712@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202402260846402151581210@chinamobile.com>
References: 202402260846402151581210@chinamobile.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 41T8nCjD062252
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 65E04532.001/4TllKG53LKz8XrRQ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/wgoC6YUo4H_2P4Bm3caceJUxt3A>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:50:07 -0000

Hi Yisong, Changwang, Mengxiao, 
After reading this draft, I think it's an interesting topic. 
I have some comments here:
1. Where is the function deployed, only leaf node or both of leaf and spine node?
2. According the example you mentioned in section 3.3, in case the link between remote spine node and leaf node broken, how does the remote spine node know which spine/leaf node should be notified, and which path should be carried in the notification message?
3. The topology depolyed in DC which used for AI/HPC may be 3-level or 5-level fat-tree, if there are many pods in the DC, there are plenty of routes and paths in the network, right? How do you consider the scaling problem?
Thanks,
Sandy





Original


From: YisongLiu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>
To: rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年02月26日 08:47
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


Hi Everyone, 

We have just submitted a draft on the rapid switchover of remote fault perception. The link for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection/The current main protection technologies include local protection through FRR, such as TI-LFA protection, and end-to-end protection through multi-path protection.In specific network scenarios, such as a spine-leaf two-layer architecture, TI-LFA cannot be deployed, and even if it is deployed, traffic will still loop during a fault. Therefore, this draft proposes a mechanism for rapid switchover that is aware of remote paths. By associating the next hops with remote path information at the forwarding plane, the local end can be quickly notified to switch in the event of remote fault, achieving fault switchover in milliseconds, or even microseconds.We welcome your feedback. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let us know.
Best Regards
Yisong


 

发件人: internet-drafts
时间: 2024/02/23(星期五)15:27
收件人: Changwang Lin;Mengxiao Chen;Yisong Liu;
主题: New Version Notification for draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt

A new version of Internet-Draft
draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt has been successfully
submitted by Mengxiao Chen and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection
Revision: 00
Title: Path-aware Remote Protection Framework
Date: 2024-02-23
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 8
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection-00.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection/
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-rtgwg-path-aware-remote-protection


Abstract:

 This document describes the framework of path-aware remote
 protection.



The IETF Secretariat