Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 02:46 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 00FF9126D3F; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:46:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.709 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 cVBu2ITnkGtG; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (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 EB7CF124F57; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id k66so1098277lfg.3; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:46:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rqBe+d0agsGy6L86iTaO4STevogCJYUAg1FnzUG13GI=; b=SspTkU4ry36bykiaUhaKISI5dmvNVPMr3qpBdiXkgALWF313UKjj9ZELh1GuWyisKm MVnbFyT7NmlggwCd8uYv6whmFGYVJrihmP5JL0Tjej5PVtCvyJlga3udSpftcky7mSRO RS3q6ycst4R0wkxpqfNAaCTOfwRPpF3Lxfti2EXZPRRrL4NTB3YhWQrRXRD/29KfSnck uWWkngdgv2Qksr4wMe+PHIqxKuAWdDrh9X8D5FmJ2+n2bHXOtrnpglDqKTdgnfQSC6mR Fh608UeJL01kSRvbPsZ0bfg3RuQ7FJ/aw9B6Z+WbgpH0PRhz9/RohOQSW75qthpRjx3W SNIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rqBe+d0agsGy6L86iTaO4STevogCJYUAg1FnzUG13GI=; b=QDEI2pWr9/2StnOFyeWiDjMK42atuPnEaFPxn9kMJFZ0Xwm6PB/3dmOlPdRI5VvGYH fB5+3xJDviUNaLLFnaXsj3de2SvxgR58kvdcvW46iCPeToEbKJr/yJJAiNx3MmW7FQ93 FzpIBbBBGNsAKqkhfFD6bTnhk42h8HO8lwVHxpcAq9IPSv1e67f6kKr6hMh/XozD1HCS sgZNe1g1QaKM1dWibFhF8zI1aXzCO9FrDPAdpgWsYqOBb9pHTgCmzgd9BzJkvqnC62h6 ycVxtTNbT7Wltb48zzQ+pAUW93zumU59xa0m7apSXYVAqsIfISr225Ao4UaRpaY8ZJf9 NOjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6X4CATe70z8RoN6JFz0D/eB3qIQvULBVeP0SC9xDXpStvVhkf6 PeOONitsZ7qyl1+bWDII8d7yjCfGR7VY3qZmPpE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbN/4oz1J3oKCSWuFeyKiw535TQpOYWmTAaPuDQ1q9bRDHR3sfVXhDfuVimsfZnUg+YuS5TSAwEwzzY2M6UvMo=
X-Received: by 10.25.193.145 with SMTP id r139mr218936lff.47.1510886759969; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:45:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:45:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a0e4b75.cb51650a.23ebe.f557SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
References: <CA+RyBmUHAkuA3o-LpHhMwCbkh0k+emt9OZ3B8Njj2h=jaasTZw@mail.gmail.com> <3B1EE673-044F-4E47-9C56-6FF360905C58@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE3047CEC9@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmVC2OjEs-=1WsL13eBmycZtnYnM8ybSdmWhGPByLKNQfA@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR03MB171328C37B726DE4AFF862D39D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmUE1vZd-T8mrNmrf8FbP_fGhzLvn9kEQQ3A=FUJazJQMg@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2922B0AAC@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C68FD7FCD@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <CA+b+ERkSx-Hs+K5f9Oc=Wu4b4AYiWh2SQBw6HqYBRCkj6+W+sw@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR05MB355115B53E8AE6C8F37FBA62C72E0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERmbEsh7b25Eup2i=fc8XTX0McyWPjrgMbRU54y5g8Fh4A@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR03MB17133DC47D1D451B855E8F4E9D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <DM5PR05MB35451E1013681FC886E1D947C72E0@DM5PR05MB3545.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ER=ZJLgAU15APGxXnrH7fJG2RF=PX+90RnYSoxCJaApn7g@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR05MB3551AE590FED2024FD21D31EC72E0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AM4PR03MB1713B62509D8D13FA5E4E2399D2F0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmXjFPpdb6M88wWMH6wRM-ekV+t5s3u8-oSS0HCE5nECrA@mail.gmail.com> <5a0e4b75.cb51650a.23ebe.f557SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:45:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUQuCW4db=u6LfstNWu2HjTuiXLcqW0D+KRt_9++LGWRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1a08789fba30055e24bc5b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Rt7ca9oFkW9cqgGqW9WNHBE3wGI>
Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:46:08 -0000
Hi MAch, thank you for the update. Will continue looking for the common solution. Regards, Greg On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Not all devices have that capability, I would prefer to a solution that > will require less extra labels. > Mach > *发件人：*Greg Mirsky > *收件人：*Alexander Vainshtein, > *抄 送：*spring,Robert Raszuk,mpls@ietf.org, > *时间：*2017-11-17 10:10:41 > *主 题：*Re: [mpls] [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance > measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? > > Dear All, > we may have lead ourselves into the woods with Readable Label Depth (RLD) > limit. AFAIK, NPUs read number of bytes of the header into the fast memory > for processing. I believe that the number of bytes is 128. If that is the > case, then what is the RLD limit? If even existing nodes are capable to *parse > SR-MPLS stack* to detect special purpose label at the BoS, then there's > no apparent need to insert SR Path Indicator more than once. Or we can > use GAL/G-ACh, as John had pointed. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Vainshtein < > Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote: > >> I concur with John. >> >> >> Thump typed by Sasha Vainshtein >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> >> *Sent:* Friday, November 17, 2017 1:33:30 AM >> *To:* Robert Raszuk >> *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein; mpls@ietf.org; spring; David Allan I >> >> *Subject:* RE: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance >> measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> Robert, >> >> >> >> How do R6, R2, and R3 determine w/ which SR segment list a packet is >> associated? E.g., the tuples in a packet from either R1 or R5 will be the >> same. >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert >> Raszuk >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 8:44 AM >> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> >> *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; >> mpls@ietf.org; spring <spring@ietf.org>; David Allan I < >> david.i.allan@ericsson.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance >> measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> I think I did but let me restate ... >> >> >> >> Imagine we have a network like below: >> >> >> >> >> >> R1 --- R2 --- R3 --- R4 >> >> | >> >> R5 --- R6 >> >> >> >> >> >> R1 and R5 are ingress of SR-MPLS domain and R4 is an egress. You have two >> SR-MPLS paths: >> >> >> >> P1 - R1-R2-R3-R4 >> >> P2 - R5-R6-R2-R3-R4 >> >> >> >> (I know those are SPTs but this is just for illustration). >> >> >> >> So on each ingress we need to map packets to SR paths by some match ... >> it can be based on the dst IP, src/dst IP, port # etc ... So we record >> those with respect to each path they take. >> >> >> >> Now we also record on R4 the same set of tuples. >> >> >> >> So now we have all counters needed without asking R4 to report P1 nor P2 >> (nor need to carry them in the packets) as based on the tuples count which >> are used on ingress for mapping we can correlate in offline tool the exact >> count of traffic per ingress segment chain. >> >> >> >> In fact we can also derive per path stats even from transit nodes with >> exact the same type of offline data correlation. >> >> >> >> Does anyone see any issue ? Is going offline so bad that we must add >> labels and modify all hardware to be able to have comfort of using router's >> CLI to get this data on the routers itself ? >> >> >> >> Thx, >> >> R. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:39 PM, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Or even just an extended email. >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:59 AM >> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> >> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; spring <spring@ietf.org>; David Allan I < >> david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> >> *Subject:* RE: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance >> measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> >> Robert, >> >> Do you plan to post a draft that explains how this can be achieved >> without changing anything on the wire? >> >> Without such a draft it is a bit difficult to compare the solutions:-) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> Office: +972-39266302 <+972%203-926-6302> >> >> Cell: +972-549266302 <+972%2054-926-6302> >> >> Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com >> >> >> >> *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org <spring-bounces@ietf.org>] >> *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:53 PM >> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> >> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; spring <spring@ietf.org>; David Allan I < >> david.i.allan@ericsson.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance >> measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> If so I stand by my msgs stating that you can accomplish your goal >> without putting anything new on the wire. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> r. >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2017 19:43, "John E Drake" <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote: >> >> Robert, >> >> >> >> I think you’re right that ‘SR Path Id’ is the wrong term and that it >> should be ‘SR Segment List Id’. We developed this draft in response to >> requests from our customers that, as described in our draft, have an >> interface on a node in the interior of an SR network whose utilization is >> above a given threshold. In this situation, they need to be able to know >> which ingress nodes using which SR segment lists are sending traffic to >> that interface and how much traffic each ingress nodes is sending on each >> of its SR segment lists. >> >> >> >> This will allow the SR segment lists in question to be adjusted in order >> to steer traffic away from that interface in a controlled manner. >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:53 AM >> *To:* David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> >> *Cc:* mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; spring <spring@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement >> for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> >> /* resending and I got suppressed due to exceeding # of recipients */ >> >> >> >> Dave, >> >> >> >> Two main fundamental points: >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> >> >> Is there any assumption that SR-MPLS paths are end to end (ingress to >> egress) of a given domain ? >> >> >> >> SR does not require end to end paths. In fact this is most beauty of SR >> that you can add one label to forward packets to different node in SPF >> topology and you make sure that traffic will be natively flowing from there >> over disjoined path to native path. >> >> >> >> How in those deployment cases all of those discussions here even apply ? >> >> >> >> 2. >> >> >> >> To make a construct of a SR PATH you must assume that SR segments are >> tightly coupled. And this is very bad as by design segments are not coupled >> to each other and in fact can be chosen dynamically in transit nodes. In >> those cases there is no concept of SR PATH at all. >> >> >> >> Thx, >> >> R. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:56 AM, David Allan I < >> david.i.allan@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> I’d rephrase this to be a bit more solution agnostic…. >> >> >> >> 1. Is E2E PM required. (and this can only be achieved with >> pairwise measurement points). >> >> >> >> 2. Are transit measurement points required as well….. >> >> >> >> BTW transmit measurement points without e2e measurement points strikes me >> as bizarre…. >> >> >> >> The view from here >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Mach Chen >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:51 PM >> *To:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; Alexander Vainshtein < >> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> >> *Cc:* draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths < >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>; spring < >> spring@ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; Michael Gorokhovsky < >> Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org; >> Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com> >> *Subject:* [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement >> for MPLS-SR is needed? >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I agree with Sasha and Greg here! >> >> >> >> I think the first thing we need to agree on the requirements, then >> discuss the solution will make more sense. I would ask the following >> questions: >> >> >> >> 1. Is only E2E PM needed for MPLS-SR? >> >> 2. Is only SPME PM needed for MPLS-SR? >> >> 3. Are both E2E and SPME PM needed for MPLS-SR? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Mach >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] *On >> Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:15 PM >> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein >> *Cc:* draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; spring; mpls; >> Michael Gorokhovsky; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org; Zafar Ali >> (zali) >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths >> >> >> >> Hi Sasha, >> >> many thanks. >> >> I'd point to SR OAM Requirements >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dspring-2Dsr-2Doam-2Drequirement-2D03&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=NMHWJAxk35ikFsOqNiswcGOWr8RLMKDjZIVUWOKbHng&s=O9dIUxKQrlwTmypTpQrHJI2ctXc1U5kWcUB1yEsqPsA&e=> >> (regrettably expired): >> >> REQ#13: SR OAM MUST have the ability to measure Packet loss, Packet >> >> Delay or Delay variation using Active (using synthetic >> >> probe) and Passive (using data stream) mode. >> >> >> >> I think that our discussion indicates that OAM requirements document is useful at least for as long as we're developing OAM toolset. And the document will benefit from clarification to reflect our discussion that PM may be performed both e2e and over SPME. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Alexander Vainshtein < >> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote: >> >> Greg, >> >> I concur with your position: let’s first of all agree that ability to >> measure traffic carried by an SR-TE LSP in a specific transit node is a >> require OAM function for SR. >> >> >> >> I have looked up the SR OAM Use Cases >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dspring-2Doam-2Dusecase_-3Finclude-5Ftext-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=NMHWJAxk35ikFsOqNiswcGOWr8RLMKDjZIVUWOKbHng&s=ZBzVsWlwT1TW-rc8hRIu2oXOGTGFWyN8oEpwHOiK63Q&e=> >> draft, and I did not find any relevant use cases there. >> >> The only time measurements are mentioned is a reference to an expired >> implementation report >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dleipnitz-2Dspring-2Dpms-2Dimplementation-2Dreport-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=NMHWJAxk35ikFsOqNiswcGOWr8RLMKDjZIVUWOKbHng&s=QfQBqcrZK7iG73fzIFm7Pt92DgaVOiHkhujytZ0q_zo&e=> >> draft discussing delay measurements. Since delay measurements are in any >> case based on synthetic traffic, and are always end-to-end (one-way or >> two-way), this reference is not relevant, IMHO, for this discussion. >> >> >> >> I have added the authors of the SR OAM Use Cases draft to tis thread. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> Office: +972-39266302 <+972%203-926-6302> >> >> Cell: +972-549266302 <+972%2054-926-6302> >> >> Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com >> >> >> >> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:28 AM >> *To:* Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> >> *Cc:* draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths < >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>; spring < >> spring@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I cannot imagine that operators will agree to deploy network that lacks >> critical OAM tools to monitor performance and troubleshoot the network. >> True, some will brave the challenge and be the early adopters but even they >> will likely request that the OAM toolbox be sufficient to support their >> operational needs. I see that this work clearly describes the problem and >> why ability to quantify the flow behavior at internal nodes is important >> for efficient network operation. First let's discuss whether the case and >> requirement towards OAM is real and valid. Then we can continue to >> discussion of what measurement method to use. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Concur. Although it has some values, it's not cost-efficient from my >> point of view. Network simplicity should be the first priority object. >> Hence we would have to make some compromise. >> >> Best regards, >> Xiaohu >> ------------------------------ >> >> 徐小虎 Xuxiaohu >> M：+86-13910161692 >> E：xuxiaohu@huawei.com >> 产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部 >> Products & Solutions-Network Strategy & Business Development Dept >> >> *发件人：* Zafar Ali (zali) >> >> *收件人：* Greg Mirsky<gregimirsky@gmail.com>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-acc >> ounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting- >> for-sr-paths@ietf.org>;mpls<mpls@ietf.org>;spring<spring@ietf.org> >> >> *主**题：* Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths >> >> *时间：* 2017-11-16 02:24:10 >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from >> abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr >> aft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dspring-2Dsegment-2Drouting-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=NMHWJAxk35ikFsOqNiswcGOWr8RLMKDjZIVUWOKbHng&s=xKKBtL1_7pyQ6k9hakXPemUtJJc9c8wKgw2FgwYttIg&e=>, >> which states: >> >> “SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while >> maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.” >> >> >> >> In addition to creating states at transit and egress nodes, the procedure >> also affects the data plane and makes it unscalable. It also makes >> controller job much harder and error prune. In summary, I find the >> procedure very complex and unscalable. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Regards … Zafar >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky < >> gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM >> *To: *"draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org" < >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, " >> mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *[spring] Special purpose labels in >> draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths >> >> >> >> Hi Shraddha, >> >> thank you for very well written and thought through draft. I have these >> questions I'd like to discuss: >> >> - Have you thought of using not one special purpose label for both SR >> Path Identifier and SR Path Identifier+Source SID cases but request two >> special purpose labels, one for each case. Then the SR Path Identifier >> would not have to lose the bit for C flag. >> - And how you envision to collect the counters along the path? Of >> course, a Controller may query LSR for all counters or counters for the >> particular flow (SR Path Identifier+Source SID). But in addition I'd >> propose to use in-band mechanism, perhaps another special purpose label, to >> trigger the LSR to send counters of the same flow with the timestamp >> out-band to the predefined Collector. >> - And the last, have you considered ability to flush counters per >> flow. In Scalability Considerations you've stated that counters are >> maintained as long as collection of statistics is enabled. If that is on >> the node scope, you may have to turn off/on the collection to flush off >> some old counters. I think that finer granularity, per flow granularity >> would be useful for operators. Again, perhaps the flow itself may be used >> to signal the end of the measurement and trigger release of counters. >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is >> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have >> received this >> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then >> delete the original >> and all copies thereof. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mpls&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=NMHWJAxk35ikFsOqNiswcGOWr8RLMKDjZIVUWOKbHng&s=08NHkgGh3s2IUy6RcA-PJ9m6Un8j-FQd_zZABnvAz9Q&e=> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is >> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have >> received this >> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then >> delete the original >> and all copies thereof. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is >> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have >> received this >> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then >> delete the original >> and all copies thereof. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _______________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> >> >
- [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-sp… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… ShaoWen Ma
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… David Allan I
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Chengli (IP Technology Research)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance me… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performanc… David Allan I
- Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performanc… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performanc… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegd… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performanc… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME per… Greg Mirsky
- [spring] Fwd: Re: [mpls] Special purpose labels i… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Fwd: Re: Special purpose labe… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Fwd: Re: Special purpose labe… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Mach Chen
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Fwd: Re: Special purpose labe… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- [spring] measurement requirements (was Re: [mpls]… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] measurement requirements (was Re: [m… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… John E Drake
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Martin Horneffer
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in dra… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)