[spring] follow-up answer on sr-redundancy-protection

"Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> Tue, 27 July 2021 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648113A1A3E; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9wpyrVSySqBt; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA4D3A1A3F; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GYnfc0QQvz6LBFS; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:57:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:09:16 +0200
Received: from kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.182) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:09:14 +0800
Received: from kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.182]) by kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.182]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:09:14 +0800
From: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
To: spring <spring@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org" <draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: follow-up answer on sr-redundancy-protection
Thread-Index: AdeCtiqDtdKuWp2sR0+SWylW+AlLqw==
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:09:14 +0000
Message-ID: <162d235d59e143d88fa5010e451a7b1b@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.115]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_162d235d59e143d88fa5010e451a7b1bhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/1ACtJIPhjznRXUFJ4gGoxJVd4QM>
Subject: [spring] follow-up answer on sr-redundancy-protection
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:09:24 -0000

Hi SPRING,

Due to limited presentation time today, I’d like to give the clarification to the questions brought by Greg at IETF 110 and 111.

From today’s meeting minutes:
Suggest to analyze why this is more beneficial than just 1+1 protection when you select the working source and protection source and do the switchover not per packet but source.

I first compare the two mechanisms in case people need background.
The common part of 1+1 protection and redundancy protection is that source duplicates the packets and sends two or multiple replicas via different disjoint paths.
The difference is,
regarding 1+1 protection, receiver only receives one copy of traffic from either path, which is determined by a local state machine on receiver.
regarding redundancy protection, two copies of traffic from both paths are received by receiver, and receiver eliminates the redundant packets per packet.

The benefit of redundancy protection is obvious. Since 1+1 protection needs switchover either at source or sink, when there is a failure on either path, the failure detection and switchover could cause the packet loss. With redundancy protection, failures on either path will not result in any packet loss, which brings significant value to service needs ultra reliable transmission.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Regards,
Fan