Re: IP Traffic Engineering

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 27 September 2019 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 BA271120113 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=raszuk.net
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 CziFI-a-RxK8 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (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 44E3E12012C for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id w14so6501209qto.9 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1BuY1+fVr11pi5pFaDKApl/WcjnOeeCFLUwJgbD1TZg=; b=VkK4z2AsVAyNxEb2ruZQuuDgdzVoiX72WEbqOsot7VccUDJGt/Ii5XtztWfA0yL6/M NqzpkqnwhilV9IpuFqZBJ3yfoDvNEmXR8rmd9eocaupgUZEYLgt/PJD9fLbZIcgs4XBA g5Ci2iRat030pPmCFBFneljkurTv04+9j/D+vLhRkuA3t089NgYTOdzOJdJH+SsI/KuJ P9inWcC+P/y0UFq7RVlXzPr5qJbRjbbBnzG9HQZzxrft/NCJWnzPdKH3XTnGP0F1Ty/O 13tX9QwRccyWXkw7wkcNeDy8NF5eioQOkkBAbbKFeXqo0f+S0o0YZG2kBC4GuEebatMQ bBOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1BuY1+fVr11pi5pFaDKApl/WcjnOeeCFLUwJgbD1TZg=; b=kATF9raUfx1sqb9U2OAuboFHbuLcyluxmiScd+tG71zW5FBjc9sIJQkQhDLSESOW/0 Z/4Q+jsi82nl725IRD6l7qcp6xGwSD4cWhAFi921AAzX+b7dOdqjtpEU8l3WAmUXqB7F IUCZxH4XOnt3UgZieSroOcmryRBlvbwxE/xHPNs18jgTy2dxx1a2jsxUXgNywCOlEKIH JEpTBYHXhjEAyV2/9jxhO697RyqDeioVnvx84v1mEpzNYxQ7hMfvlhMqaB4G0zCAi1Ws RpN8QlX+DhLkBRkdcMvsVgu9IAjKuau2qubS8FIb7Avgnl0kSktIP6guzrbHZ2Tc1eHL rHUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVn6XVu8NBH1ETopPjXlJ5h9rsYy1mkgaSnz4r60oapKMCX5HSK UG0ySrz0LfrpUJ8uQEMqlj9ZZYq0c2AWD5CRlzMqFQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+eXeR1F3R3p/OnKs0m+wZh2h7Y08wKk6uDbcw9CQLKMATVM0nuPRv9ShkMdYU58gKXPlnN8SP0pIzGh74mWU=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ef85:: with SMTP id w5mr6835509qvr.159.1569578850144; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156953754350.31990.16627132446644830194@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOj+MMEEn9uGH-qjapYw2guxnipcYE0u-3PH6wWPECiCQDhXiQ@mail.gmail.com> <01cd01d57502$81302c60$83908520$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <01cd01d57502$81302c60$83908520$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:07:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEMrCkPwP7M0QJqxMm90m3a+iMsN9b_dDAWA8UKx6_zzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IP Traffic Engineering
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cf696f0593860dc1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/xP91dcPx67F2U607MTfFIAUUxLk>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:07:34 -0000

Hi Adrian and Lou,

Many thx for your suggestion.

Reading charter of TEAS it does seems like a good fit for the IP TE part.
What is however not in the TEAS charter is concept of network functions
which is the second part of the solution natively embedded in the proposed
architecture from day one (IP TE*+NP *part).

I think I will not hurt anyone to submit it to TEAS. I guess we can keep
-00 also in RTGWG for now.

I guess it will be up to chairs and ADs of those two working groups to
decide which one should "own" this type of hybrid work.

Btw looking at TEAS charter I found a bit artificial scoped coordination
with IDR limited to BGP-LS.

"- With the IDR WG on the use of BGP-LS in TE environments."

In my specific case I do plan to use other BGP extensions as possible
alternatives to distribute the path+function information around. But I am
not defining any new extensions (only reusing as is
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy)
so this is not a stopper for me.

Many thx,
Robert.


On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:09 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> It’s an interesting draft.
>
>
>
> Did you know there is a working group chartered to work on IP Traffic
> Engineering Architecture? It’s TEAS.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* 27 September 2019 00:07
> *To:* RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* IP Traffic Engineering
>
>
>
> Dear RTGWG,
>
>
>
> I just submitted a document where I present new perspective on traffic
> engineering for IP networks. As the scope of the new architecture and
> deployment target does not fit any other working group I decided to submit
> it to RTGWG.
>
>
>
> Comments, opinions, contribution - very welcome !
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> - - -
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>         Title           : IP Traffic Engineering Architecture with Network
> Programming
>         Author          : Robert Raszuk
>         Filename        : draft-raszuk-rtgwg-ip-te-np-00.txt
>         Pages           : 22
>         Date            : 2019-09-26
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a control plane based IP Traffic Engineering
>    Architecture where path information is kept in the control plane by
>    selected nodes instead of being inserted into each packet on ingress
>    of an administrative domain.  The described proposal is also fully
>    compatible with the concept of network programming.
>
>    It is positioned as a complimentary technique to native SRv6 and can
>    be used when there are concerns with increased packet size due to
>    depth of SID stack, possible concerns regarding exceeding MTU or more
>    strict simplicity requirements typically seen in number of enterprise
>    networks.  The proposed solution is applicable to both IPv4 or IPv6
>    based networks.
>
>    As an additional added value, detection of end to end path liveness
>    as well as dynamic path selection based on real time path quality is
>    integrated from day one in the design.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-rtgwg-ip-te-np/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-rtgwg-ip-te-np-00
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-raszuk-rtgwg-ip-te-np-00
>
>