Re: [spring] Thoughts on optimality

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sat, 18 September 2021 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 8DF883A163A for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 eCR2accyHBNJ for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (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 7649B3A15C5 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id u18so18693866wrg.5 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=3zIH/1aUxzwnJx7vGfI2FhRuff7kHubTyFBXbR60F5o=; b=JqnjFwFpb5ynmtuJcKnjrjO4hW4moxt1wdUIdEw5OzwCbZOx56BeFJDs505s7UbdgQ VaKfWvsxXqVMVxW62SLELZz56aQ6O403PPgwlErHMmaM2Qq5eMQb5IHtC3fTa67fcP/q 9LOTkX4muvswqg2usRJ98tIVifnTJzwQ2cjuoCDo92g6iPF4JX6GBzMdcFfXnWFSc8FL CexE8hEboN0mH2iv1LvaGkNYY7mmZmqMpsJTPe5AQfyRlGQT6mcBCCpYWHCrOuxQEBQZ 8NcVD/7/jY2cMGHSlPoNSvRD760yPdHLPc4pb4nMRaLlRSYSyNatOFK9GBAURb6RYOEE bcKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=3zIH/1aUxzwnJx7vGfI2FhRuff7kHubTyFBXbR60F5o=; b=4f5P0+C43q8ZeW8Eq6EAxpOwflAZQ29VekIoYKBGhcDYOkEcIkAcr8biqZbyp6k9gd Jl/HWaqZ06jsE2Juehohgy2ZxuqU96nVvUHt70fGaBbsb0VMVk49VAE1272nKEYd4mTb x2sz/QwxVRlNq10DybfNSK/bBEtGVdVWZfJn06/aFFFlpfiOXMF+lkpxIDpkUIK68x6k nW05wNftdPB/HT8zd+o9qAnHwlolojoGtRD4ff5cTFcSb1x8zN47NHyBve8PLsh0gyN2 d0nnpdbRDPOGx9i4G3xVeuImLI36oSvVbtIQTCvT10hs0v2YdH9Yf2ykn3Fk1taSzAOi tXgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UoyLQ4PV09E5PhCoSLekbxmjTbjrl1tfsekWQiyIxvs891OxX ppcacVX/a1KUexp7rDpdFQmrt8RRX0w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsiE7VUolvUIykkIYLk72cqZeUqoTPpFddR8rGFmP4qyQ+Grlu0QdfOwl8tIKl4HQBA0/YKg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d1b3:: with SMTP id w19mr18675918wrc.152.1631982523267; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:659:ad15:3e82:4668:7e8e? ([2601:647:5a00:659:ad15:3e82:4668:7e8e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n68sm14417194wmn.13.2021.09.18.09.28.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8753B86C-5292-44A9-A854-B271532C4935@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_56E697B8-DC6B-4483-85B0-C8782C052E2D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:28:38 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7F1F9A33-38C8-4F89-9AE2-05E64C6DCF5C@tony.li>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
To: spring <spring@ietf.org>
References: <7F1F9A33-38C8-4F89-9AE2-05E64C6DCF5C@tony.li>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/8jM6nvstOJ3RiHM7AaIQOAa-uWU>
Subject: Re: [spring] Thoughts on optimality
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: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 16:28:58 -0000

Hi,

I think Tony makes an excellent point.   The main purpose of this work is to compress the SRv6 header.  I agree with Tony that the w.g. should focus on the solution that provides the best header compression.

Bob


> On Sep 16, 2021, at 3:23 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We now seem headed to be adopting both the requirements and analysis drafts and thoughts start to turn towards the debate for selection.
> 
> The requirements draft has done a good job documenting our requirements and the analysis draft gives us a perspective on how the various proposals fulfill those requirements, but a deeper nuance is needed to guide us to making an optimal choice.
> 
> To that end, it seems to me that three of the requirements are paramount:
> 
> - Encapsulation Header Size
> - Forwarding Efficiency
> - State Efficiency
> 
> Of these three, Forwarding Efficiency and State Efficiency seem like they will be overcome by hardware technology.  Continued growth in semiconductors will help us scale here, so the remaing requirement of the Encapsulation Header Size would seem to predominate, and we should therefore optimize for that.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring