Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

i wouldn't just focus on the guaranteed bandwidth (which in any case has
been working with RSVP-TE and this solution will provide something as good
as that), but also on the other key requirements that SR-CS can meet (like
correctly identified in the draft):
- Predictable E2E TE paths with predictable bidirectional delay
- E2E recovery (i.e. protection and restoration)
- Path integrity
- Data plane remaining up while control plane is down

These requirements are not less important that the guaranteed bandwidth.

Moreover, pardon me for asking, why intense admission control would be a
problem in the network ?

Cheers,
Daniele

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:35 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > If you want to have a network slice for remote surgery probably you
> > need something more reliable, but otherwise it's a good enough solution.
>
> Spot on !
>
> And that is my main point. We are reusing notion of completely different
> technology like SONET/SDH containers.
>
> And that is to create only a poor approximation of it assuming very
> strong/tight admission control to the entire network, no multicast
> which can spoil the game at any replication node and with huge pray and
> hope that there is going to be no unplanned and unaccounted traffic in the
> underlay.
>
> See till today I still meet folks who believe reading marketing slides
> that RSVP-TE (incl. GB) does actual data plane reservation.
>
> Here we are going step further and claim that SONET/SDH can be sold when
> running over IP :)
>
> Cheers,
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 3:23 PM Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> i had in mind something with the same capabilities/characteristics of
>> RSVP-TE.
>> The same problem has been addressed for decades by operators using LDP
>> for 90% of the traffic and RSVP-TE just for a small portion of the traffic
>> (e.g. phone call back in the days).
>> With mix of admission control and proper planning it is possible to
>> achieve decent performances. If you want to have a network slice for remote
>> surgery probably you need something more reliable, but otherwise it's a
>> good enough solution.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniele
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:27 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniele,
>>>
>>> Could you kindly elaborate on what level of "guaranteed bandwidth" you
>>> expect SR to provide ? Especially in the context of _circuit_ emulation ?
>>>
>>> And even if you build the mechanism to account for bandwidth on a per
>>> class of service basis and use controller to push your policies everywhere
>>> in the network it is still only done in the control plane.
>>>
>>> So how are you going to assure that in your default IGP topology there
>>> is no traffic of a given class (external or internal or accidental) which
>>> would impact the promise of your emulated circuits ?
>>>
>>> This draft in section 1 makes IMO a very dangerous illusion that you can
>>> accomplish analogy to SONET/SDH in IP networks. I do not agree neither that
>>> this is the case nor that it should be the case.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:15 AM Daniele Ceccarelli <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>
>>>> the phrase "circuit style" attracted my attention and reviewed the
>>>> draft.
>>>> I think segment routing should provide good support for proper traffic
>>>> engineering (guaranteed bandwidth, recovery, path constraints etc.) hence i
>>>> believe the draft should be adopted.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Daniele
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:13 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In case it is not clear to folks, the chairs are particularly
>>>>> itnerested in hearing from folks who are not authors of the document, but
>>>>> have opinions on whether this is good work for the WG to undertake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:11 AM, Andrew Stone (Nokia) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As co-author, also support adoption.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"Rokui, Reza" <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 7:29 AM
>>>>> *To: *IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>,
>>>>> "[e-mail]"
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>,
>>>>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, "Rokui, Reza"
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [**EXTERNAL**] The SPRING WG has placed
>>>>> draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
>>>>> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Resent-To: *<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Resent-Date: *Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 7:29 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is
>>>>> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
>>>>> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
>>>>> additional information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As co-author, I support the adoption.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reza
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:04 AM
>>>>> *To: *[e-mail]
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>>>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Subject: *[**EXTERNAL**] The SPRING WG has placed
>>>>> draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state
>>>>> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern)
>>>>>
>>>>> The document is available at
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/__;!!OSsGDw!PrF5MLj2VoK47BuWO76oeewImBaGMafe294qNONXqhmq7i57ixXHdL_zK2azlh1DsID1fgczKQ2sDmGvgCW8AZU$
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/__;!!OSsGDw!PrF5MLj2VoK47BuWO76oeewImBaGMafe294qNONXqhmq7i57ixXHdL_zK2azlh1DsID1fgczKQ2sDmGvgCW8AZU$>
>>>>> [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment:
>>>>> This starts a two week adoption call for the subject draft.  Please
>>>>> speak up
>>>>> if you support or object to WG adoption.  Two notes: 1) WG adoption is
>>>>> the
>>>>> start of the process.  The basic question is whether you agree that the
>>>>> subject is worth the working group time to work on, and whether this
>>>>> represents a good starting point for the work. 2) Please include
>>>>> explanation
>>>>> for your view.  Yes or no are not very helpful answers, as this is not
>>>>> a vote
>>>>> but an evaluation of support and concerns. Thank you, Joel (for the WG
>>>>> Chairs)
>>>>>
>>>>> We expect to close this call at the end of May, 2023.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> spring mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spring mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>
>>>