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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 02 February 2021 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 6393D3A1123 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:54:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 Q0dnJFc6VT2v for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 AC7583A109D for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DVb9R3l9Nz6GWMQ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:54:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1612295643; bh=YehZieb4DNIW8lseSTtE+a8ZIFGErwtw+LULQsykJ+w=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kozhB5b6TlrLH9UNJoIppldsJJNxwXEiXSm7zckQ58uSdtpd6ddOnEdgDPLsYRa0u kJkkfSjfI+j3b/gPe0yMYjXPojwLCfJPDAwz4TQwrvkA04uNtDT5Ye7DmVzoW58lF1 qLykTwGExRrMWLxLFH1NZBeELDzPBGw8exZ5jy4M=
X-Quarantine-ID: <lbxHLHL30TdP>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DVb9Q53ZMz6GDCr; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:54:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Colby Barth <barth.colby@gmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR13MB42061AD1E295598F1F2726BDD2BB9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <4834865901e24eaaa2f5d521183541d6@huawei.com> <f978d7e834c044bbafc15dd75f4d663b@huawei.com> <99E7CBE7-9FF0-41AC-8083-F62CFF543AA2@juniper.net> <9C77EDF2-8E3A-4E4C-837A-4BC40497B0A5@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b952ffdd-54a9-ccb2-93c7-fab3fdbf8f23@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 14:54:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9C77EDF2-8E3A-4E4C-837A-4BC40497B0A5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/rBwSsSpz05X_eQiLIHSSmzfXwLM>
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 19:54:05 -0000

Colby, you are, as far as I can tell, correct that the potential for 
state explosion is extremely risky and requires careful management. 
That is why the bestbar draft emphasis that the state is abotu slice 
aggregates, not end-to-end slices, and probably not even individual IETF 
network slices.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/2/2021 2:19 PM, Colby Barth wrote:
> Tarek, indeed …
> 
> draft-bestbar-spring-scalable-ns-00 provides a relevant example of the rather enormous amount of state the solution described in draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn results in:
> 
>     "Notably, this approach requires maintaining per slice state for each
>     topological element on every router in the network in both the
>     control and data plane.  For example, a network composed of 'N'
>     nodes, where each node has up to 'K' adjacencies to its neighbors, a
>     node would have to assign and advertise 'M' Slice Prefix-SIDs and 'M'
>     Slice Adjacency-SID(s) to each of it 'K' adjacencies.  Consequently,
>     a router will have to maintain up to (N+K)*M SIDs in the control
>     plane, and an equal number of label routes in its forwarding plane."
> 
> 
> Put in practical terms, this implicitly limits the number of VTNs or, in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-01 terminology, the number of Slice aggregates that can be offered.  It also introduces a dependency between the network size and the number of VTNs.  i.e. the larger the network, the smaller the number of VTNs that can be supported.
> 
> —Colby
> 
>> On Feb 2, 2021, at 12:54 PM, Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eduard,
>>   
>> Inline..
>>   
>> On 2/2/21, 10:50 AM, "spring on behalf of Vasilenko Eduard" <spring-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>>   
>> Hi all,
>> There is the general trend to encode the action into the packet, not to distribute states in the control plane for all possible traffic types. Granularity, programmability are better.
>>   
>> [TS]: Indeed, we are in agreement on encoding the information in packet as opposed to distributing states in the control plane. In draft-bestbar-spring-scalable-ns, a separate ID inside the packet is proposed to carry the needed information. However, this draft <draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn> is proposing distributing per VTN state in the network which is completely against your argument ...
>>   
>> Regards,
>> Tarek
>>   
>>   
>>   
>> This type of virtualization is fully in-line with this trend.
>> Support.
>> Eduard
>> From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:47 PM
>> To: spring@ietf.org
>> Cc: spring-chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
>>   
>> 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
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>