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

[杨术 <[e-mail]>]

Hi, John,

Yes, there are many ways to achieve the same thing, and there are many
path-like solutions that can be used
to replace two dimensional routing under some circumstance.

Thanks,

Best Regards,
Shu Yang

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:20 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If you have received this digest without all the individual message
> attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
> subscription.  To do so, go to
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
> MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
> globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
>
>
>
> Send rtgwg mailing list submissions to
>        [e-mail]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        [e-mail]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        [e-mail]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rtgwg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>      Architecture" (Russ White)
>   2. Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>      Architecture" (Fred Baker)
>   3. Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>      Architecture" (??)
>   4. RE: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>      Architecture" (John E Drake)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:15:37 -0500
> From: Russ White <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>        Architecture"
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> > We are looking for your comments on the new draft "Two Dimensional IP
> > Routing Architecture".
>
> Some thoughts...
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
> ==
> Due to the important semantics of source address, recent years see
> increasing works on adding source addresses into routing controls.
>
> Could you point to some more recent efforts than source routing (which
> is years old)? I'm not certain source addresses would actually need to
> be added to a routing protocol to use them for anything --it might be
> worth discussing under what circumstances adding such addresses might be
> add information that's not already present in the routing system.
>
> ==
> If the host is using address A, and the link l1 or l3 fails.  Then the
> host can immediately detect the failure, then switch to address B, and
> continue to communicate with the Internet via ISP2.
>
> How would you see the host detecting and reacting to the failure more
> quickly than the routed control plane, itself, could detect and react to
> the failure?
>
> ==
> Within destination-based routing, traffic towards the same destination
> has to travel along the same path in the network.
>
> This really isn't true --in reality, almost every implementation load
> shares based on the some bits or another in the packet header today. One
> of those sets of bits can be the source address in many implementations
> (if not all?). I'm not certain how your proposal adds anything to this.
>
> ==
> If there is congestion on the link between b and d, and router b moves
> the traffic towards d to the north path via c.  Thus, the probe packets
> will flow on the path a-b-c-d, which does not include the link between b
> and d.
>
> This seems like a more specific case of traffic engineering, which is
> actually covered in the next section.
>
> ==
> The section on FIST is interesting, but it's at the implementation
> level, rather than the protocol level, so I'm not certain how applicable
> is within an IETF draft.
>
> ==
> With these preconditions, each edge router can announce the foreign
> Internet prefixes combined with its own router identification to the
> network, each PE router can announce the customer prefixes combined with
> the corresponding customer domain number, PE routers are also
> responsible for announcing the preference of customer networks on edge
> routers.
>
> Figuring out how to advertise sources/destination pairs isn't really a
> problem overall.. What I don't understand is how this is different than
> the information already in the table today --every source and
> destination is already there, just not matched together. What is the
> value in matching them together in a single piece of control plane
> information? None of the use cases supplied in the draft seem to require
> the information to be paired in this way, nor does building a
> source/destination pair routing table (that I can see, at any rate).
>
> ==
> TwoD-IP routing will enhance the security level of the networks, because
> routers will check source addresses, which is an important identity of
> the senders.
>
> I'm not certain I understand why this would be, given the ease with
> which source addresses can be spoofed. I suppose you could say that you
> could do an rpf check at every ingress interface, but you can already do
> that (to the degree that aggregation and load sharing allow). You could
> claim that the additional state provided in pairing source and
> destination addresses in the routing table would allow more specific
> checks --but probably no more than simply getting rid of all
> aggregation, or even flooding host routes throughout the network --and I
> don't know if there would be more state in pairing source/destination
> sets, or flooding host routes, so it's hard to analyze the actual case
> for this claim.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 23:33:31 +0900
> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> To: ?? <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>        Architecture"
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:02 AM, ?? 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/attachments/20120309/477671df/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:25:14 +0800
> From: ?? <[e-mail]>
> To: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>        Architecture"
> Message-ID:
>        <[e-mail]
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Shu Yang
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:02 AM, ?? 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/attachments/20120310/32515265/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:18:38 -0800
> From: John E Drake <[e-mail]>
> To: ?? <[e-mail]>, Fred Baker <[e-mail]>,
>        "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing
>        Architecture"
> Message-ID:
>        <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I think you missed several of the points Russ White made, viz, most
> routers can already be programmed to do this as part of their ECMP support
> and that this does not require any protocol changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> ??
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: Fred Baker; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Review request for "Two Dimensional IP Routing Architecture"
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Shu Yang
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:02 AM, ?? 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/attachments/20120309/a292ea6e/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>
> End of rtgwg Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6
> ************************************
>