Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 28 January 2021 10:52 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 DDA733A14B3 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:52:37 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=raszuk.net
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 ZHBwXdzRPUe4 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 B59553A14AE for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id h7so6989304lfc.6 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:52:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i4//Yo3BXCl3myO2g6pY9cvrZxHJuh1A9qJpCSaSJxw=; b=cM2BoOjo6HpO3KntV3vlTEVh0uKpE+wabe+xPjdu0B1LvY0AauHudPdeCkFpbmoIM3 LDecwSdcgQfTgrNSsfXPa2D6WZ0qe1SKBUF2Y/21+hFOwrXnTsTLyYrODn5VFwVcNAJc ppRU/OAG2hLvL8z0l1anKsZhFKnFnP7UlnGlXTKUtpMML10/55Qw0sEd9S+mvGjtCyOb YxSQXAWsNy5g1X+UO4wjxBapF8lfrYykAy30wEZsTA32SQVGukvyVo/evdiD1AspCFL1 cl2XnpCO+V2VLgxN+J4cOgKaPKjwxLOqy3vSyy+8HSeKVEByN7judGYMbJwbqL2KXAfq jzFw==
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=i4//Yo3BXCl3myO2g6pY9cvrZxHJuh1A9qJpCSaSJxw=; b=lHlXsvXc0OhBH24dP2AvvqhMqRgWAXBvFUQ71/Yy7IAlYHklHbUgkWRllpFKtSoA7M qisqO6aAjHVgZxu4SJTiZY3aMG/gJzDk6feV4hRmECGeI3ZnTJGIzURr2HLoW8FfjGqo YU1fm4D6WiDLyllBj4aVlL7IFp77i2oXKJD+98vVW0F0w5p7imOJFjO/ytPtDfNV39/I CPgTy7nWqhuNpZ9mgXxyvMLsaGMHid42WzlSBqL9r4dkWNxFo5NYk+pzq8rbvrXFt/IJ QIpbjRk6W1qwIjqkIbRIB+443ieShXrj7vosTrVBAc5AUZjxIwxE+q1K2zBofjPA6c0H Q5Ow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fQuTMuDRVtJ9O5euMP7HaNb63T6awvC8Z1x6dCfZh3NBwweZI E4A6HC0O7k+skHSU9s74Vhqbx98OZbSB7uLqWXPlcA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJECoUuaTVdCQK9VYyfwLFJIr8uQN2G0jI6J3E2l4OKTbyL5o1V5Nu+cG8u/XL2/w/xfCJ4Mk3fAMe5sfkfos=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5104:: with SMTP id q4mr7068288lfb.517.1611831152613; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR13MB42061AD1E295598F1F2726BDD2BB9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMFm=Hen4VqDHCtoEmeieasTj5iByTvmLbQ9qCsHvCO=ww@mail.gmail.com> <faa6fd3de58342ceb27f2c6019f964dd@huawei.com> <CAOj+MMG_9aMzaT=BzB+TqENr9CGZV71KX2FiZkCOczXt4T1T+w@mail.gmail.com> <51055e0ea0964962b658ed9496f60038@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <51055e0ea0964962b658ed9496f60038@huawei.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:52:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFvcgW7-vUv=Mg6-wZQ-DTASN4339HnwbCAusVmrpXWVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a2cea05b9f3af42"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZRGuESLXu_K29vE-SaCW-M274p4>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:52:38 -0000

Jie,

Can you perhaps say exactly what "resources" are you planning to reserve ?
It would be awesome if you in the same time provide yang model and cli on
this too.

Take any segment endpoint  - Are you going to reserve PQ space at each
egress line card ? If not this then what ?

Now take any transit none SR aware node - just forwarding pure SRv6 packets
(so here IPv6) - Are you going to reserve PQ space at each egress line card
?

Note that if this is so - you are essentially doing strict QoS nothing
more. If not this then what are you really planning to reserve looking at
each routrer, line card, fabric, interface queues etc ... ?

In all of the above please keep in mind that routing does change every now
and then so would the actual path between any two segment endpoints. Unless
you want to severely waste your network resources and reserve say queueing
space everywhere - which btw does differ implementation wise vendor to
vendor too - it will still allow very little services to run over this. And
IMO you are just going to accomplish exactly the same behaviour as
with vanilla QoS.

Last any form of reservations only make sense when you do strict admission
control and ingress policing of traffic. I have not seen any discussion on
this.

Best,
R.







On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:52 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk [mailto:robert@raszuk.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:01 AM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>om>; spring@ietf.org;
> spring-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
> draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
>
>
>
> Jie,
>
>
>
> > [Jie] Agree that with MPLS-TE the reservation could just happen in the
> control plane
>
>
>
> This is not "could" ... this is real - they *are* happening all in control
> plane only.
>
>
>
> The only data plane reservations were done with RSVP Int-Serv (for those
> who still even remember this) and you see how far it went.
>
>
>
> For IP networks based on statistical multiplexing hard allocation of any
> data plane resources == waisted resources.
>
>
>
> [Jie #2] RSVP Int-Serv defines the mechanism for per-flow data plane
> resource reservation, which has the scalability issue, and as you
> mentioned, no statistical multiplexing gains. Its value is that it can
> provide guaranteed performance for the service.
>
>
>
> In contrast, the mechanism in the resource-aware segments draft and this
> document is based on per-segment resource reservation rather than per-flow
> reservation. Based on the resource-aware SIDs, multiple flows of the same
> customer or of a particular service group can share the same set of data
> plane resources. Thus comparing with RSVP Int-Serv, this mechanism has
> better scalability and allows statistical multiplexing among the customers
> or services in the same group, it can also avoid the competition or impact
> between customers or services which are assigned to different groups of
> resources. More about this is described in section 4 of this document.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
>
>
> Many thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 4:39 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your email. Please see some replies inline with [Jie]:
>
>
>
> *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:03 PM
> *To:* James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; spring-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
> draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Before I make a decision on expressing my support or indicate no support I
> would like to better understand what resource reservation is being
> discussed here.
>
>
>
> [Jie] The resource reservation here refers to the data plane resources
> reserved for different virtual transport networks.
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-01 also talks about
> "reservations" yet lacks clarity what those reservations will actually be.
> It provides analogy to MPLS-TE, but at least those who build MPLS-TE
> products are aware MPLS-TE or even MPLS GB-TE does not provide any data
> plane reservations. All both do is to provide control plane resource
> bookings.
>
>
>
> [Jie] Agree that with MPLS-TE the reservation could just happen in the
> control plane and does not have to be in the data plane.
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-01 also mentions the inefficiency
> of the controller based resource management with existing SR in some
> scenarios, thus both the resource-aware-segments draft and this draft are
> talking about data plane resource reservation.
>
>
>
> So fundamentally does draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-01 and
> this draft in question also are trying to now map SIDs to control plane
> resource bookings ? Note fundamentally in all above cases it only works
> when all traffic in yr network is actually using such reservations as
> otherwise unaccounted traffic will destroy the game completely for those
> who think we see green light we are good to go. That is also why for real
> TE it is/was critical in MPLS-TE to provide such engineering for all of
> your ingress-egress macro flows.
>
>
>
> [Jie] As explained above, the idea is to associate different SIDs with
> different sets of data plane resources reserved in the network, so that
> traffic encapsulated with different SIDs will be steered into different set
> of data plane resources. This way the unaccounted traffic in your example
> will only be allowed to occupy the set of resources which are associated
> with the SIDs carried in the packet. Thus the mechanism could work without
> per-flow engineering.
>
>
>
> Even then if you start to run other traffic on the same links ... say
> multicast or control plane storms of any sort - again all of your assumed
> reservations are immediately becoming unnecessary complexity with zero
> benefits.
>
>
>
> [Jie] Similarly, based on the above mechanism, the impact of multicast or
> control plane storms can also be limited to a subset of data plane
> resources. This is the benefit of the data plane resource reservation.
>
>
>
> So with that let's make sure we understand what is being proposed here.
>
>
>
> Btw if someone has a pointer to discussion about
> spring-resource-aware-segments it would be great too. My few years of email
> history does not return much. Maybe the draft got renamed during publishing
> as SPRING WG item.
>
>
>
> [Jie] The history is, draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments was part
> of draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn. After the first the adoption poll
> on this document last year, based on the received comments and the chairs’
> suggestion, it was split out as a general enhancement to SR, and the rest
> part of draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn continues as an application
> of the resource-aware segments.
>
>
>
> Hope the above helps to provide some background information.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:46 PM James Guichard <
> james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:
>
> Dear WG:
>
>
>
> This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call for
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/
> ending February 10th 2021.
>
>
>
> After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG
> adoption to the mailing list and if you are willing to work on the
> document, please state this explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication
> of the energy level of people in the working group willing to work on this
> document. Please also provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack
> thereof) as this is a stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this
> is not a vote.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jim, Bruno & Joel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>