Re: [spring] Monitoring metric to detect and locate congestion

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:50 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 129863A0A86 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:50:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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 sytvH19kYCtx for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 BD4513A0A7F for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id v19so333569ote.8 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:50:12 -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=LfpNwP4F55hlfRCt0lJ5SZlRKlDlvvvzC2OZ+QRVbOk=; b=JrqFJ+bUHG61OP/MwbVMfHyyeo2OWSvhdT/h+1m7sabzFX8XMMEbEEaHJPm3PpqiDe vqQsM59Z/vxhPGmXwJQ+slwqrukX1Hf/LoHreh/SCWevE8NQN+Y5djpehIDGdczOrMr+ 5iBT1CEV216MY/1UFWgEwMa1MFKm/o53OSFyBjEnO/IneoI7Cv5ZikmKn/JieaArk4IS vPkQrjU2ii78dbINEBrKU3DbiJMs+mFp7cwjn+nqUr9maNYj/Ty32n6h52M0A9st4I2Q Y4e1j8AHR2UQeKeEr824csktlPR8RMOmQUMdypHNUjgIsyBtqcjgDm/C/wp20CoozecO QfNQ==
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=LfpNwP4F55hlfRCt0lJ5SZlRKlDlvvvzC2OZ+QRVbOk=; b=uVVRYxjLbC4Msgrs/CY87I3rnLNZ3oDyhd+2ZeD2qFMFuI5grc7g7MRMNOslAO48aa DZrMq6pWgJpHAp0Y//bKVjAC+iTFtSHfnX7Nkqna090/i0FPQq7BEJzvS3QHb6fyvCEf 7kAYiBM9z2SuXVomjWNwgdu6Oicz36JVd3uQ2d+prSPqUrGsoZRWmmSsYPdqm9zyi6HQ o1WorvUDEYGzd+OA1kNONt1A+7RLaQeoOu26MMUVh5MSErLHarUSQZQh53Ld4XgOOeiR 1ChTaUhODlmnJjKD2dyXOcdtInfQHk6YotDdYQris1NKnsoMS/0CPZWTSpTaNr1G2Mv7 9wcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbfxB9DrwxbWQ2tnLq9+zDZjXla+dTZ/0PsrDS6VNcN90bKZm+ i0SwJkrEcWFMzyUASTDjktMmewpNh0DQHcGqUll3kQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjNx4v2VjeP2cZ0XK1+zzQssEuwIPRKGNFa/R6U3bt6XLHWzi7LNZbEQMsqHGKVYBGBER1gewx6wKKqC/1Wuo=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7083:: with SMTP id l3mr394105otj.193.1582833012012; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:50:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <FRXPR01MB03926E7F0A28B837D69C3C819CEA0@FRXPR01MB0392.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <BYAPR13MB2485E450C9A230E4A54104769AEB0@BYAPR13MB2485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB2485E450C9A230E4A54104769AEB0@BYAPR13MB2485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFskpmOmc+xqf3K_nU7ePaXbTCF97nvKabdCa0xOosr_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b887b059f94073e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oFw6IhG3RsV9JzmGnjZx9Ue1v0I>
Subject: Re: [spring] Monitoring metric to detect and locate congestion
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, 27 Feb 2020 19:50:15 -0000

Hi Haoyu,

> which applies Eulerian Path algorithm to find the minimum set of paths
with network-wide coverage.

In practice networks use ECMP. ECMP decision may happen at each hop. Your
end to end flows get spread over all ECMP paths. So limiting number of
probed paths is inaccurate to the fundamental objective of the exercise.

That is infact main challenge with any end to end path probing today ... if
you do not cover all possible paths your packets may take between ingress
and egress you just do not get full picture of the network.

Thx a lot,
R.


On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 8:44 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Hi Ruediger,
>
>
>
> I like the general idea that using pre-determined paths in SR to collect
> performance metrics. I think this approach provides some unique benefits
> compared with the other approaches. It is also coincident with some of
> related research work I’m doing.
>
> Here are some thoughts I have.
>
>    1. I think IOAM could be used as the standard approach for such
>    probing packets. It can collect the performance metrics mentioned in the
>    draft and does more.
>    2. An interesting problem raised by the draft but not fully addressed
>    is the method to plan the optimal paths. There is a work called INT-PATH (
>    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8737529) which applies Eulerian
>    Path algorithm to find the minimum set of paths with network-wide coverage.
>    However, the problem here seems different: you need path coverage
>    redundancy. My question is: do we really need the redundancy to achieve the
>    measurement goal? If so, what’s the best planning algorithm should be? In a
>    real and large scale network, we have constraint on where the probing
>    device(s) can be placed, and we usually want to monitoring the entire
>    network, so an efficient algorithm is necessary.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *
> Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:55 PM
> *To:* ippm-chairs@ietf.org
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [ippm] Monitoring metric to detect and locate congestion
>
>
>
> Dear IPPM (and SPRING) participants,
>
>
>
> I’m solliciting interest in a new network monitoring metric which allows
> to detect and locate congested interfaces. Important properties are
>
>    - Same scalability as ICMP ping in the sense one measurement relation
>    required per monitored connection
>    - Adds detection and location of congested interfaces as compared to
>    ICMP ping (otherwise measured metrics are compatible with ICMP ping)
>    - Requires Segment Routing (which means, measurement on forwarding
>    layer, no other interaction with passed routers – in opposite to ICMP ping)
>    - Active measurement (may be deployed using a single sender&receiver
>    or separate sender and receiver, Segment Routing allows for both options)
>
>
>
> I’d be happy to present the draft in Vancouver... If there’s community
> interest. Please read and comment.
>
>
>
> You’ll find slides at
>
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ippm-14-draft-geib-ippm-connectivity-monitoring-00
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F105%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-105-ippm-14-draft-geib-ippm-connectivity-monitoring-00&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C4f7ef087db7046424e2508d7ba915817%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637183005756536633&sdata=98D7jZDubbhdB3ext94tjEElItEBVyDUld6cQtND6O4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Draft url:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-ippm-connectivity-monitoring/
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-geib-ippm-connectivity-monitoring%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C4f7ef087db7046424e2508d7ba915817%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637183005756546590&sdata=sRAxvsAvs2nHOFme1%2FVZV%2FcFgvZ5AIFtFe5jInmfy7Q%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ruediger
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>