Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08
Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 03 September 2018 11:29 UTC
Return-Path: <gdawra.ietf@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 80860130E34; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 TtpQM51Qa0xx; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 04:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 44D4A130E32; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 04:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id x26-v6so193598lfi.7; Mon, 03 Sep 2018 04:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x0fgL4vXQI+Gpww2Wase4yM/ShSS1PhPGT06YQM6ceo=; b=iDEHH37UnAUJRVNji3i2cJrFrMkvErm2iiLim7ujwFrmasvGiIcOMKoKcJkkOqg6K4 J7QH2CXhRI8a/sGyPatANGVN33I8eMy4QywI1jh6kbNPvfCzqEA6UZc6M2X5lB7MKAoF RX2M3Ggv4HztNhhlq32FTCd4Qon4OhnkWHRgggXNK2L47NKUONtbGRidFJWZf5rsmdIE oV2hKhIh4ov4JJDUcrZG+7XGidI22ktVPGqRgc3DK3WxAofnYrBCpNouuz952DOcS358 QcNVIvZ5bQ5Dq4qT7lcjGh3JFdIMLVuJ6DOoR171ctHhYn11/JVURSIcYEdg4GjiO/14 jJzQ==
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=x0fgL4vXQI+Gpww2Wase4yM/ShSS1PhPGT06YQM6ceo=; b=LKLXVDHj2TaZT1d1RVrNxh/qAMSdt8nes1AekYEk6yzR0+YoUcyDmONL2ueLz3LdOP 5j+x+KhJ3IYWhztvWA63A/zQYabLw9gm500+hD3EXFSzJvBC7dYItObdhJSKpZaNhHFl h0i4axi7tsUnmRYKUnvUxr2tnh1998An62j4VSiOHHae3A5wWiVF8v0GH1KeGa2QEevT ixvsnO8SSH5bfG5061o4yi7mUk1M+HqwAKi6jkpsBoB8gPIUp8G2OJxBiHaMWoEZHuFk FhfxCECAG2XTQmUSnS80m8SmuLSa/zyqomoRJAw9BUIDk69pkLczcI70bvHmouvkhpWC 8RRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51ARxxlGgSODund1t0ykVWvrsDJx5NgEFsYXzMr8eD1IyLuEJa1j bgVwq7cWNrXQKKQ41ath3hXvG83o1CRaEa2nDVA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZrxDeccs/l1Oqlvcpabj6ASxd/hhRB80Ru4J8TDyWkKwN+wGMvbc53aOdxptOqXNq7k+mobsiEb9lbQR1MJ7g=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:500f:: with SMTP id e15-v6mr16913240lfb.71.1535974174421; Mon, 03 Sep 2018 04:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a77a198c-2a5a-d754-8725-6d6685338f6c@gmail.com> <40ED2C86-3403-4D89-8CA8-FBB9651BF2AB@gmail.com> <6dd41180-83bd-c02e-1783-df873e749941@gmail.com> <ACD3CA27-2B92-4BD9-9D2B-A22FE20A65E7@gmail.com> <EC4C550B-05D7-4E6D-A1FD-ED48ECDC3059@gmail.com> <465981C7-7AB1-43AF-8A80-69D835871077@gmail.com> <CAMMESszPMdjpFLjY7aMVaaPbP0GVVZgB_n6hu4gQt6fSbGOi8A@mail.gmail.com> <d0d88a49-9cd8-fad4-9a8f-af45f1a8da2c@gmail.com> <CAMMESsxXhdXGd3k9qzPWqdnLyJb+m50K0y4-U9G=R_E1heoZ-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMOQah81UHX0HZM98cyjv50N1hzUqgUi8tUn96HVwPqPvKxW=w@mail.gmail.com> <8652B1BB-C2E7-4324-8E79-E3092362AE1A@gmail.com> <CAMOQah-qL6MxEQKXzEzXN8b3ToSTnX1uJ5AZafh=8E35qv1DZQ@mail.gmail.com> <c4bbf256-9552-ca47-812e-d60838c301c8@kuehlewind.net> <2120B719-EB92-4A47-A26C-0E2E810F1CA8@gmail.com> <CAMOQah9s57vgjUVynBqZim=7fx0745uQeOKARu8DtKdiFU36ng@mail.gmail.com> <3b257a8a-0455-cd1b-6e95-0e03ab3f1830@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <3b257a8a-0455-cd1b-6e95-0e03ab3f1830@kuehlewind.net>
From: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 04:29:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMOQah9vxzNMqXqKY-YNM1LLBMyryx=bFoDeBp4Da7MCt39Uxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000cfa830574f5db7f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Nt4xudDrnXOIDPeTaRt-iRsK3oA>
Subject: Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 11:29:40 -0000
Hi Mirja, Please see inline...[Gaurav2] On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > Hi Gaurav, > > please see inline. > > On 03.08.2018 07:20, Gaurav Dawra wrote: > > Hey Mirja, > > Sorry for the long delay. I was traveling constantly since IETF and bit > lost in my mailbox and discussion with Authors. Please see my response > inline[Gaurav] > > > I think with your changes you addressed explicit problems Martin called > out, however, I still have high level concerns about these sections as they > are mostly giving speculative recommendation which are not clear to me to > work in practice. > > Regarding section 7.1, you say > "A flowlet is defined as a burst of packets from the same flow followed by > an idle interval." > but then you say > "...then the application can break the elephant flow F into flowlets F1, > F2, F3, F4..." > > This sounds like you would just divide an elephant flow mostly randomly > into flowlets which can interact badly with the congestion control. If you > actually have chunks of data that are transmitted with large enough idle > interval in between (as you define flowlets in the first sentence), that is > not an elephant flow anymore and it will not help you to "spread the load > of the elephant flow through all the ECMP paths". In summary I actually > don't see how the concept of flowlets can be helpful to address the problem > you have at all, and I still advise you to remove section 7.1 entirely. > > [Gaurav] Hi Mirja, Thanks for the review. The proposal here is no > different that current ECMP hashing at flowlet level. The only difference > which is being pointed out here is that if we use SR, we could leverage on > the ability of be aware of multiple disjoint paths rather than the hashing. > It’s pins the flowlets to particular paths which is basic SR operations. > > > Yes the problem is that we usually don't recommend ECMP hashing on flowlet > level because it can interact badly with the end-end mechanisms of that > flow. As I said, I don't see how the notion of flowlets help you problem > and therefore I still recommend to remove that paragraph. > [Gaurav2] OK. It took sometime to get to consensus with authors. Will > update the text to use 5-tuple flows instead of flowlets. Would that > suffice? I will update the text shortly. > > > Regarding section 7.2, I also still skeptical about any benefits that can > be achieved. Given you are in a data center, the controller should already > know about static parameters such as the maximum bandwidth per link. > > For dynamic parameters, e.g. like loss rate, measuring them on a per-flow > bases is the wrong thing to do. What I mean is you can ask a router about > the average loss rate that it observes and that might give you some > valuable, however, if you ask a TCP flow about the average loss rate the > answer will mainly depend on the congestion controller used and the > currently available bandwidth, which is a very dynamic property and not a > link characteristic. So this information is not usable for performance > aware routing. A flow could give you information about the observed RTT > (min/max) on a certain path, or the maximum available bandwidth on a path, > but as I said, given you are in a data center environment these are > information that the controller already should have anyway. > > [Gaurav] They are two separate mechanisms. Most DCs have some sort of > data-plane/ECMP aware tracing mechanism to detect the loss/delays and can > be combined with Application back-off to detect issue. All this section is > suggesting is that SR can be used to pin the path to particular set of ECMP > paths instead of relying on ECMP hashing. > > > This is not quite what the text says. If that is the statement you want to > make, that is fine but then you don't need to talk about performance aware > routing at all. > [Gaurav2] I will update the text here with statement i mentioned above. IMHO, it's performance aware routing wrt to end-host traffic. > > > Your example with detecting a faulty path due to losses does not work with > TCP as you never know if these loses are due to a problem on the path, > self-induced or by a competing flow. And even if you don't use TCP and e.g. > send constant bit rate traffic, there may be a large number of competing > TCP flows that can induce the loses. Try to steer traffic "away" on a > time-scale that is slower than TCP dynamics or even your flow dynamic (when > flows start or end) in case you have a lot of very short flow, in the best > case doesn't work and in the worst case leads to oscillation. > > [Gaurav] As I said above, there are other mechanisms to detect loss and > trace the path on which loss is seen. This is a common mechanism used in > MSDCs. > > I think this is beyond the scope of the document. > [Gaurav2] Will update the text. > > > > I am happy to discuss further over the phone to try to explain the thought > process. I will also do check again with Authors to update the text or > something else based on our conversation. > > > Maybe see if some update can be made to the text first and then we can > have another discussion if needed. > [Gaurav2] Sounds good. Will update the text shortly and then we can > discuss if needed. > Cheers, Gaurav > > > Cheers, > > > > Gaurav > > If you want to make TCP use for handover situation where one path might go > away or become unusable, it's best to use Multipath TCP (with coupled > congestion control) instead because that works on the right time scale. > Again, I don't think this is a use case for SR and I would recommend to > remove the section entirely. > > Mirja > > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Mirja, >> >> Ack. Let me work with authors to close ASAP. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gaurav >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 5, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Gaurav, >> >> sorry for my very long delay but this got somehow a bit lost in my >> mailbox. >> >> I think with your changes you addressed explicit problems Martin called >> out, however, I still have high level concerns about these sections as they >> are mostly giving speculative recommendation which are not clear to me to >> work in practice. >> >> Regarding section 7.1, you say >> "A flowlet is defined as a burst of packets from the same flow followed >> by an idle interval." >> but then you say >> "...then the application can break the elephant flow F into flowlets F1, >> F2, F3, F4..." >> >> This sounds like you would just divide an elephant flow mostly randomly >> into flowlets which can interact badly with the congestion control. If you >> actually have chunks of data that are transmitted with large enough idle >> interval in between (as you define flowlets in the first sentence), that is >> not an elephant flow anymore and it will not help you to "spread the load >> of the elephant flow through all the ECMP paths". In summary I actually >> don't see how the concept of flowlets can be helpful to address the problem >> you have at all, and I still advise you to remove section 7.1 entirely. >> >> Regarding section 7.2, I also still skeptical about any benefits that can >> be achieved. Given you are in a data center, the controller should already >> know about static parameters such as the maximum bandwidth per link. For >> dynamic parameters, e.g. like loss rate, measuring them on a per-flow bases >> is the wrong thing to do. What I mean is you can ask a router about the >> average loss rate that it observes and that might give you some valuable, >> however, if you ask a TCP flow about the average loss rate the answer will >> mainly depend on the congestion controller used and the currently available >> bandwidth, which is a very dynamic property and not a link characteristic. >> So this information is not usable for performance aware routing. A flow >> could give you information about the observed RTT (min/max) on a certain >> path, or the maximum available bandwidth on a path, but as I said, given >> you are in a data center environment these are information that the >> controller already should have anyway. >> >> Your example with detecting a faulty path due to losses does not work >> with TCP as you never know if these loses are due to a problem on the path, >> self-induced or by a competing flow. And even if you don't use TCP and e.g. >> send constant bit rate traffic, there may be a large number of competing >> TCP flows that can induce the loses. Try to steer traffic "away" on a >> time-scale that is slower than TCP dynamics or even your flow dynamic (when >> flows start or end) in case you have a lot of very short flow, in the best >> case doesn't work and in the worst case leads to oscillation. >> >> If you want to make TCP use for handover situation where one path might >> go away or become unusable, it's best to use Multipath TCP (with coupled >> congestion control) instead because that works on the right time scale. >> Again, I don't think this is a use case for SR and I would recommend to >> remove the section entirely. >> >> Mirja >> >> >> On 05.07.2018 04:08, Gaurav Dawra wrote: >> >> Hey Alvaro, Mirja, >> >> Friendly reminder to further progress this document. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gaurav >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Alvaro, Mirja >>> >>> Any feedback or next steps to close this? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gaurav >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mirja, >>> >>> Friendly Reminder...Could you please also advice if there is anything >>> further to DISCUSS on this document which was also related to TCP updates >>> below? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gaurav >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Martin! >>>> >>>> On June 6, 2018 at 3:14:45 PM, Martin Stiemerling (mls.ietf@gmail.com) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alvaro, all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for addressing my concerns. >>>> >>>> This version is good to go from my side. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> ;Martin >>>> >>>> Am 30.05.18 um 21:55 schrieb Alvaro Retana: >>>> > Martin: >>>> > br/>> Hi!! How are you? >>>> > br/>> Gaurav just posted a revision. Please takke a look and let us >>>> know if br/>> the changes address your concerrns or not. >>>> > br/>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff??url2=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-09 >>>> > br/>> Thanks!!! >>>> > br/>> Alvaro. < >>>> > br/>> On May 25, 2018 at 12:08:46 PM, Gaurav Dawra (( >>>> gdawra.ietf@gmail.com br/>> <mailto:gdawra.ietf@@gmail.com>) wrote: >>>> > br/>>> Hi Martin, < >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks for review. I will post the new version. Hopefully, it will >>>> br/>>> address all your comments and we can close thhis review. >>>> >> >>>> >> Any updates on below response? >>>> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >>>> >> >>>> >> Gaurav >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >> >>>> >> On May 23, 2018, at 4:17 AM, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com >>>> br/>>> <mailto:gdawra.ietf@@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks for the review. Any further comments here ? I will post the >>>> br/>>>> new version soon. < >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Gaurav >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On May 16, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com >>>> br/>>>> <mailto:gdawra.ietf@@gmail..com <http://gmail.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Apologies from my end we had few internal authors conversations on >>>> br/>>>>> the points you have raised. < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find below my response. I will be happy to discuss further, >>>> br/>>>>> if needed. < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <Gaurav> inline... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Martin Stiemerling < >>>> mls.ietf@gmail.com br/>>>>>> <mailto:mls.iietf@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Gaurav, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> This got lost on my end, sorry for this. The filter just moved >>>> br/>>>>>> these messages out of my sight... :-/ >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Am 15.02.18 um 05:47 schrieb Gaurav Dawra: >>>> >>>>>> Hey Martin, >>>> >>>>>> Sorry for late reply. Please see some comments inline[Gaurav] >>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Martin Stiemerling br/>>>>>>>> >>>> <mls.ietf@@gmail.com <mailto:mls.ietf@gmail.com> br/>>>>>>>>; <mailto: >>>> mls.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area >>>> review br/>>>>>>>> team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. >>>> These br/>>>>t;>>>> comments were written primarily for the transport >>>> area directors, br/>>>>>>>> but are copied to the doocument's authors for >>>> their information br/>>>>>>>&> and to allow them to address any issues >>>> raised. When done at the >>>> >>>>>>> time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review >>>> br/>>>>>>>> together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please >>>> br/>>>&>>>>> always CC tsv-art@… if you reply to or forward this >>>> review. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Summary: >>>> >>>>>>> This draft has serious issues in Section 7..1, 7.2 and in one >>>> part br/>>>>>>>> of Secction3, described in the review, and needs to be >>>> rethought. br/>>&>>>>>> The other sections are good AFAIK. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Technicals: >>>> >>>>>>> The overall draft looks ok, but the three points below look >>>> br/>>>>>>>> strange and need a fix before publication IMHO: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Both Sections, 7.1. and 7.2., are describing ideas, but not >>>> well br/>>>>>>>> proven funcationality and not even safe to use >>>> functionality. br/>>>&>>>>> Both are some sort discussing that different >>>> paths in the network br/>>>>>>>> could be used by the eend host traffic. >>>> This sounds pretty much br/>>>>>>>t;> like the Path Aware Networking >>>> Proposed Research Group br/>>t;>>>>>> (https://irtf.org/panrg) and >>>> hints to the fact that there is no br/>>>>>>>> commonly understannd and >>>> accepted engineering solution in this space. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Section 7.1: >>>> >>>>>>> [KANDULA04] is a really old reference that hasn't been followed >>>> br/>>>>>>>> up iin recent times and even worse there is no evidence that >>>> this br/>>t;>>>>>> is going to work good enough or stable enough under >>>> real Internet br/>>>>>>>> traffic. Additioonally, it is more than unclear >>>> how any modern TCP br/>>>>&ggt;>>> implementation will react to this >>>> >>>>>> [Gaurav] Will get back on this. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I will reply to the other email dicussing this. >>>> >>>> <Gaurav> I have replied to other thread. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Section 7.2: >>>> >>>>>>> This section describes an idea without detailing too much about >>>> br/>>>>>>>> any furtther aspects. Further it changes the commonly accepted >>>> br/>>>;>>>>> notion of what an end host can do with the network. At best >>>> this br/>>>>>>>> would require a good ddefinition of what an end host in >>>> your br/>>>>>>>&ggt; setting is, e.g., a highly modified piece of (at >>>> least) software >>>> >>>>>>> that usually not found in OS availble on the market (yet?) >>>> >>>>>>> Further communicating instantaneous path characteristics to a >>>> br/>>>>>>>> central point is potentially a bad idea, as the data is already >>>> br/>>>;>>>>> outdated when reported by any node. >>>> >>>>>> [Gaurav] I believe Authors are trying to highlight that Host >>>> which br/>>>>>>> is defineed in br/>>>>>>> ( >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draftt-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15) >>>> br/>>>>>>> can innfluence the traffic based on the Calculations locally or >>>> br/>>>t;>>>> jointly with the controller. Implementations can decide how >>>> much br/>>>>>>> Centralized -vs- localized coontrol is allowed at Host >>>> based on br/>>>>>>> perfoormance data collection. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Performance data collection (monitoring?) isn't crucial when it >>>> br/>>>>>> comes to timely (actuaally real-time) reaction. However, this >>>> br/>>>>>> secttion isn't just about performance data collection as it is >>>> about br/>>>>>>> "Performance-aware routing" this seems to try to interact >>>> in br/>>>>>> real-time with the network behhavior of TCP. This isn't even >>>> close br/>>>>>> to acceeptable. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I would be ok to say that it is useful to collect performance >>>> data br/>>>>>> for offline analysis and improvement of the data network. >>>> However, br/>>>>>&ggt; this is at completely different magnitues of time >>>> scales. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I would recommend to remove the TCP part from this section >>>> entirely. >>>> >>>> <Gaurav>Ack, will update in next rev: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Section will read like this: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ; >>>> >>>> /Knowing the path associated with flows/packets, the end host may/ >>>> >>>> /deduce certain characteristics of the path on its own, and/ >>>> >>>> /additionally use the information supplied with path information/ >>>> >>>> /pushed from the controller or received via pull request. The >>>> host/ >>>> >>>> /may further share its path observations with the centralized >>>> agent,/ >>>> >>>> /so that the latter may keep up-to-date network health map to >>>> assist/ >>>> >>>> /other hosts with this information./ >>>> >>>> // >>>> >>>> /For example, an application A.1 at HostA may pin a flow destined/ >>>> >>>> /to HostZ via Spine node Node5 using label stack {16005, 16011}. >>>> The/ >>>> >>>> /application A.1 may collect information on packet loss, deduced >>>> from/ >>>> >>>> /Other offline mechanisms. [There are some pingMesh mechanisms >>>> which / >>>> >>>> /Can be used here]/ >>>> >>>> /Through these mechanisms information to a centralized agent, >>>> e.g./ >>>> >>>> /after a flow completes, or periodically for longer lived flows./ >>>> >>>> /Next, using both local and/or global performance data, >>>> application/ >>>> >>>> /A.1 as well as other applications sharing the same resources in >>>> the/ >>>> >>>> /DC fabric may pick up the best path for the new flow, or update >>>> an/ >>>> >>>> /existing path (e.g.: when informed of congestion on an existing/ >>>> >>>> /path)./ >>>> >>>> ; >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Section 3, 3rd bullet point: >>>> >>>>>>> It is the foundation of TCP that the network is regarded as a >>>> br/>>>>>>>> black box and that you infer from the transmission of packets >>>> br/>>>>;>>>> what the current state of the network path is. Inferring >>>> network br/>>>>>>>> path metrics (you mention SRTT, MSS, CWND ) is a bad >>>> idea, as br/>>>>>>>>; this would required that all paths exhibit this and >>>> if not what br//>>>>>>>> is going to happen? >>>> >>>>>>> It could be an interesting research field to change many points >>>> br/>>>>>>>> in TCP'ss behavior, but this once again points to the fact that >>>> br/>>>&>>>>> this not the IETF works but IRTF or elsewhere. >>>> >>>>>> [Gaurav] Martin, Authors are trying to suggest that TCP is >>>> rightly br/>>>>>>> treating Network as Black Box. Authors are implying per >>>> path br/>>>>;>>> performance metrics as not cached. Is there some change in >>>> text br/>>>>>>> you are suggesting?? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I would recommend to remove the 3rd bullet point completey. TCP >>>> br/>>>>>> isn't the place to rememmber "good" or "bad" paths. This is >>>> br/>>>>>> something the network could decide, e.g., rerouting TCP flows >>>> br/>&ggt;>>>> within the network or changing the forwarding path in the >>>> network br/>>>>>> for particular flows (if it is not routed). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <Gaurav> Ack, after discussion, we will remove the Section 3 - 3rd >>>> br/>>>>> bullet point. Willl update in next rev - coming shortly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tsv-art mailing listTsv-art@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art >> >> >> > >
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segm… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind (IETF)
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Rob Shakir
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Rob Shakir
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ie… Rob Shakir