Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 11:06 UTC
Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 CB089129420; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 W3mgyUKpHyjv; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6685A128B88; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [85.158.138.179] by server-4.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id C8/00-13743-0417D0A5; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:06:40 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpgl+JIrShJLcpLzFFi42IxUXSI1bUs5I0 y2LtD0GLn7B42i+3H17BbbFt8htXi1tKVrBZNC5uYLY5f+M1o8XXvQ1aL1zu+sjtweEz5vZHV Y8mSn0weLc9Osnns3riAKYAlijUzLym/IoE148g3v4LGdSwVLXumMDUwXlnG0sXIxcEi0MYsM aHpMyuIIyQwhUli1aTHbBDOPUaJuT8OMXYxcnKwCdhKbFp9lw3EFhFwlmg7do4dpIhZYAmzxO 3my2AJYYEsiWu/jzJ3MXIAFWVLNPwxhKgPk7jX288KYrMIqEosPd3BDmLzCsRITGk+DhYXElj BIjG7VQlkJqdAB6PEyZurwBKMAmIS30+tYQKxmQXEJW49mQ9mSwgISCzZc54ZwhaVePn4H1R9 ksT9pwsZIeKKEjPuzWGHsGUlLs3vZgRZICFwhF3ixZe9LBAJY4muCXtYIWxfid5FH9lBHpAQU JbY8iIWon4Fo8TetdugBulI/Jpwig3Czpf4tecxM0TRHkaJjxdb2CCch6wSh39NZoGYJCPxu9 sSbvOnx7/ZIX5Oljgx5zPLBEbtWUi+mwXUwiyQJ7HtEMcscCgJSpyc+YQFIqwpsX6XPkS1osS U7ofsELaGROucuezI4gsY2VcxqhenFpWlFuma6yUVZaZnlOQmZuboGhoY6+WmFhcnpqfmJCYV 6yXn525iBKY6BiDYwdj43ekQoyQHk5Ior/Nv7ighvqT8lMqMxOKM+KLSnNTiQ4wyHBxKErzv8 3mjhASLUtNTK9Iyc4BJFyYtwcGjJMI7ASTNW1yQmFucmQ6ROsXoyrHh5t0/TBw7wOQ+MPnk2r y/TBzPZr5uYBZiycvPS5US5/UEaRYAac4ozYMbDcsYlxhlpYR5GYGOFeIpSC3KzSxBlX/FKM7 BqCTMq10ANIUnM68E7oJXQMcxAR1nc4Mb5LiSRISUVAPjCoGpZw/9uSFl8SDUxajFNICJfe/V iFnbnD7cbhdeKGd/JkZCoU679X/tCjsjg46aW+/4097u9YlJMk9m4jY/rdKlsuTF11Vnpe6vv Lnf7sQsg5mXLq3MVEnbEu3Gf+F77VWXOhMxs6cKzl9tbthZ/3lwhC94yYOP/65YmVdcYpJLbl lzoNJfiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAWtjjlxMEAAA=
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-169.messagelabs.com!1510830388!126505629!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.33.64.93]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.4.45; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 28181 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2017 11:06:31 -0000
Received: from ec2-52-33-64-93.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com (HELO EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.33.64.93) by server-9.tower-169.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 16 Nov 2017 11:06:31 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=WRPn7LxYucn5I6oS2wuJWgoYXlxZ8cOGWiKbVuQiifs=; b=W+POk6/5U6WSkrASbDodJrrq4LVXZqPBdipqEXu+t0TYE6PjMcr82XmFa9a6nrpF6O1qUp7SuWJ+09x3Zh2MLAmWgQQothZ9tGXZwnbE2Eu+3axwzPTzP9LQD20L8PQdNo/wEsqLzXsq4+kDTgk40ifCcQLIrCFw+Uzv3hNkcMY=
Received: from AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.88.15) by DB6PR0301MB2566.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.72.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.239.5; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:06:27 +0000
Received: from AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::51e:9df0:75fb:d611]) by AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::51e:9df0:75fb:d611%14]) with mapi id 15.20.0239.005; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:06:27 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
CC: spring <spring@ietf.org>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>, draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
Thread-Index: AQHTXj7p2nUnIXsOmkCuZ5PMoKj+8KMWQkuAgAAGK4CAAFlbgIAACfAAgAAotQCAAAI9kA==
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:06:26 +0000
Message-ID: <AM4PR03MB17132E049714D43567A2D0359D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.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+b+ERkYZpdGS90VBH202yXbDeaEcyHk3UWNW+NUKS-WrkHAOg@mail.gmail.com> <25654_1510829327_5A0D6D0F_25654_230_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EABF115@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <25654_1510829327_5A0D6D0F_25654_230_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EABF115@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB6PR0301MB2566; 6:cLmJ9en0Scca43SJRdhPcAedVkSqBksltnpyQ+uhx2wEHFpeLL2mQrc/PH9l3RI3vcVJ8RUuvojFm27q9/gxfsIs4y6TZ6L7cpaRqivxC8+UN3VdqsCK4ImUJ68TMBfX88adVACrqQ//AXZHAoyJAa0GfHmrDUTdN5MCKsTR1AFyIoA2nmVLJMXDLx2AkHUmOdF4yuWIMQG1bRmpBKZCpytp24esFB/rLmFjttzLJdWVIn7aqszQxkdl1THWo8p6pF68tyvmASArUYqRy0tRS3UAFyNDVUGt7QDyrddrbAUJ2yhY1TI1KIdCipM9gq+er6J1ax7SfiA8HKteAcEYdrJtNo/omJmHFC2+de5brPE=; 5:wfCJL2RWISs+xNTTPRqgeC74RlxGq94XAAUVmBiKg2vsdt0WrlgHt1ZavgXvQPr4VCl1u/1NSM5PVV8n/6Pe83ogU3s+xwrOIsIK/8Uhf5WSlI1QUb6feVoEXVD0Lyo1k6E4WCc2gntUhjMiDyTyF148MQvTh2SXW5OSgjRxv9U=; 24:s2ydk/5lVzviUxIo7/vWjXN51YM2ush5bnwkiD2aObnVN789DaxxEVom2G0TzVgKPcgEz2KMjS5JUzVEXskWuM+WwNou2cU3G4qcpNKo/Wc=; 7:2Qwr9PvxamZKIpr9ZVQupZyflp8Za33+mK/1tQ9rUnA7I1PPfB6SaF8R2npev4MZVZtM7qlXqAx85mguCd9CBwm8FR69h5Ce1EKJv4H3BOGjC5Dg5/DzYmsRBBY95xcl3VzKumElvBvyIfk5/SWCjW1rGlGLA2HluizwwZT6sWZyV1oYwFE4o5c+aegmXoX/5Sc/sUJL//quAoa+hyaE5MDNr/mKrzieQZLdsHe8lLbyxOk/BsTquS215Jn+ZyVx
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6ca42963-6f07-477a-857b-08d52ce2150e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603199); SRVR:DB6PR0301MB2566;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB6PR0301MB2566:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB6PR0301MB2566BE655A1B07833DC090C69D2E0@DB6PR0301MB2566.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(50582790962513)(788757137089)(259379197776797)(95692535739014)(227612066756510)(18271650672692)(21748063052155)(279101305709854);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703101)(100105400095)(3002001)(3231022)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:DB6PR0301MB2566; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:DB6PR0301MB2566;
x-forefront-prvs: 0493852DA9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(346002)(24454002)(252514010)(377424004)(37854004)(189002)(51444003)(199003)(10710500007)(33656002)(8676002)(7736002)(19609705001)(106356001)(6306002)(53936002)(81156014)(81166006)(105586002)(2351001)(5630700001)(6246003)(189998001)(14454004)(86362001)(229853002)(53946003)(5250100002)(316002)(9686003)(66066001)(54896002)(97736004)(3280700002)(2906002)(236005)(93886005)(7696004)(74316002)(4001150100001)(966005)(99286004)(3660700001)(6916009)(2950100002)(7110500001)(68736007)(8936002)(50986999)(54356999)(76176999)(54906003)(478600001)(5640700003)(3846002)(6506006)(790700001)(6116002)(72206003)(102836003)(2420400007)(6436002)(2900100001)(4326008)(53546010)(101416001)(5660300001)(2501003)(15650500001)(606006)(230783001)(345774005)(25786009)(55016002)(5890100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6PR0301MB2566; H:AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM4PR03MB17132E049714D43567A2D0359D2E0AM4PR03MB1713eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6ca42963-6f07-477a-857b-08d52ce2150e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Nov 2017 11:06:26.9516 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0301MB2566
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZwditZSScBCPf7mnklVSMpHHmj4>
Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:06:48 -0000
Stephane, Lots of thanks for formulating the questions that, from my POV, should be answered (one way or another). As I see it, they are: 1. Is transit node per SR-TE LSP statistics a problem that should be solved? 2. If yes: a. Is it a critical or “nice to have” issue? Or something in between? b. Should the solution be localized in the NEs or moved to an external entity? Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:49 PM To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Cc: spring <spring@ietf.org>; Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org; draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com> Subject: RE: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Hi, Yes today we do not have any CLI command on any router to get paths statistics for LDP (I mean Ingress to Egress) as LDP is based on MP2P LSPs, so a transit node does not have the knowledge of the source. From an operational point of view, what we do today is that we collect netflow statistics on core routers, we project the label stack onto the routing with an external tool to get the Ingress to Egress LDP traffic including the mapping of the flows on the links. Now for RSVP, we do have such statistics as the LSP is P2P and has states on every node. Robert mentioned correctly that SR-TE (especially with MPLS dataplane) has limited TE features (we cannot mimic all what RSVP does in SRTE without adding too much complexity). Thus, is it a problem (transit node stats) worth to be solved ? If yes, where do we accept to put the complexity ? For a stats issue I would rather prefer to move the complexity to an external tool that can do correlations or whatever operations rather than getting it in the forwarding plane… IMO, that’s a “nice to have” problem to solve getting that we do not have this for LDP and we know the limitations of SR-TE MPLS. However, Ingress stats per SRTE LSP are for sure mandatory to get ! The main drawback I see with the proposed solution is that it mimics what Entropy label does with a solution which is similar and at the same time cannot replace entropy label as the provided entropy is far from being sufficient (this is not the goal I know, but I was looking for potential use case optimizations). So in a network running entropy label and this mechanism, a router will need to find the ELI/EL and hash, then find another special label to build the stats (maybe tomorrow there will be a third one to look at and a fourth one…). That starts to be a big overhead for the forwarding plane. Brgds, Stephane From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 16:23 To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: spring; Clarence Filsfils; mpls; Michael Gorokhovsky; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>; draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; Zafar Ali (zali) Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Folks, This thread started and the requirements reported clearly stated that all what we need is the ability to account per path traffic on egress nodes. Now out of the sudden I see requirement popping up to be able to measure per path in transit nodes. Well you can do it today with SRv6 if your hardware allows or you can do it with RSVP-TE. SR-MPLS is replacing LDP and adds ability for limited TE. But SR-MPLS never intended to become connection oriented protocol nor architecture. So I recommend we take a step back here. Or if you like first go and fix basic MPLS LDP LSPs to allow per end to end path accounting in transit nodes then come back here to ask for the same in SR-MPLS. Not the other way around. Thx r. On Nov 16, 2017 16:12, "Alexander Vainshtein" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto: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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase/?include_text=1> 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://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report-00> 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<tel:+972%203-926-6302> Cell: +972-549266302<tel:+972%2054-926-6302> Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:28 AM To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>> Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:+86-13910161692> E:xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto: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<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>;mpls<mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>;spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto: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/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, 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<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM To: "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. ___________________________________________________________________________
- [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)