Re: [Srcomp] Comments on 3.1.3. REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY

"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ddukes@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF783A09BB for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Lf6PhVLH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=g/2Fq+O9
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 UrMREts-HMuq for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB383A09C3 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12367; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1600993874; x=1602203474; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=DlmPdDO9FAjmdsga9YNNlbwITjyzKvFaoV5k28opGcY=; b=Lf6PhVLHMC/aVzJM3Vg0mGJ8TBjUZ6UbxVOMe5gSv6pkow4zQAGQjqEe jWXG5pBDXGwY639SScgiMS5ZL/7zRzVMZQBK2xN1sHC+q7FJV2++JrMPi GKNH97tDqUmNgymp4E5Z/DOva23Ud9UVB3BM7fq5ULNkEnZacPYr6CMyw U=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:B2qo5hCDUSjTx8iMeMU7UyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9pssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qw00g3JQIzE5vMCgO3T4OjsWm0FtJCGtn1KMJlBTAQMhshemQs8SNWEBkv2IL+PDWQ6Ec1OWUUj8yS9Nk5YS8bjbkLfozu56jtBUhn6PBB+c+LyHIOahs+r1ue0rpvUZQgAhDe0bb5oahusqgCEvcgNiowkIaE0mRY=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DxCQBkOW1f/4gNJK1fgQmCcgEuUQd+Sy8sCod4A417lAiEboFCgREDVQsBAQENAQEtAgQBAYRLAoIuAiQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBAQEDEi4BATgPAgEIEQEDAQEoBzIUAwYIAQEEARIIEweFA00DLgGsXwKBOYhhdIE0gwEBAQWFOBiCEAmBOIJyijwbgUE/gVSCTT6CXASBKAEMBgEjNIMUgi2QHooXi3mRDQqCZ5p3oQ2TBKADAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFrI2dwcBWDJFAXAg2SEIpWdAI1AgYKAQEDCXyMMYE0AYEQAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,299,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217";a="548312441"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 25 Sep 2020 00:31:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08P0VCsD028033 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:31:12 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:31:12 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:31:11 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:31:11 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Rl+YVmtUoP1wg+t1riBeOb5XtO4zBxuVoz8HweyVSn9fsyOXlQ9yfoctej328+asah+zJliKy9IB+SkLPvBkOt9BOO81WyCKNDd0KPnrDYOLWhVp8NM0Bs2oyk96WHQ2uNidgsRJb2OMybbK2syEIALg23vtmZFHgQHR64VUeVV0jFYfAP4hYxtLw7YVbd+LdLTDLWV3pnwBLRg+44vDl+m347ct0SOJgBDy5jieUWTKkizS8B7ue2CRMWD3JF0ff4MPY5vor/85xLszzlxe7Ztj/W5e1IpyYCUjdK6SUD7INYcp0HvnEZrZzkvU4LfzfrHEFPME/bwjEJvaeKj+Cw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=r3t3+Q+mU/iX313bPL52yjpAzfeWowlp8Bi9TaeWPYs=; b=X9W3TNO7teDY4RgFwhYWDMewCI6/IEve0KVHrtby5fx4MIn0xuaCy/+XpdA/alyDD+7b02WN/OJnnk1xhtPUevkCkoX5kJiOwYXkJvIOUvlTRGbyn+nGEM2pb3OybwXlWfYBJYCtj4o+PD4XFdlhD0hfbuqXuIRNifFPjGPLCJe08uA40N7t+V2xDQpw75a1PN0AVSIQ86L4iIt45FUgneXBP8yoY8hcG0uH5lzpOCvsa8zy+mpxxbd5tsD31I1GRwxqNPr2g3i21ItCO+zI2wAyaGYR6exD9aABJlaaJ1D54OBOBMBNAsMTSkt5kdWUYIfQRKaXXC2Sxb2VJzvtCw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=r3t3+Q+mU/iX313bPL52yjpAzfeWowlp8Bi9TaeWPYs=; b=g/2Fq+O9icV8EJnzzO752jbBD2Zuhy0SOLM6eafpNXHUdDkSsqd0piX3vlSiy+0A4V4x3MEKAiTlpyslda5MMHeS78v1d+SlDU2ExUpVl14tkG0eIi5al5ZSyOTQkXavIfsaeHkdn2Nev0iFFuirH1WbIljfCQmSrf4JmIkaKf0=
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:78::38) by BN6PR11MB3907.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:83::29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.21; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:31:11 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::40c:6c9f:dc7e:18da]) by BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::40c:6c9f:dc7e:18da%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3391.025; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:31:10 +0000
From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
To: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on 3.1.3. REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY
Thread-Index: AdaR3llyzBhBMgonRPanUdyj3MyzDgAeU5OgAB6I+wM=
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:31:10 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR11MB408147391192E799BA0CEBF1C8360@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348A018C28A228D7CDD1FBCAE380@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02BF4E52@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02BF4E52@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [198.84.207.201]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: daf98e62-ca74-449c-ff06-08d860ea4d45
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB3907:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB390721832EFE8E881F3861F3C8360@BN6PR11MB3907.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: HOemA/8B8MwRClMKnt8t4jDSDwqv2TGxnk1vDAeOuMUGK85URDLeThPDAt5Z3gvJcykNiJzYFpRneAwOc+XNn/hKg3u0h6ibO4aQVdis+VjUWLIs4Ig1syjRKgmZ29ZYbQVYQGuZ+jr+13IMaSWGdeXyGpxrAmkzK7T+lH1jX9q8MVnPd7twDymWtvTBYyz+2Ozh68XuJgr3+mF1dn3FFgN0XmNViMcpeUVhsLfyhD6jHlZmRKp7Iiq3RNSdNQPn8H0nQ9GfCJqyU1+9GSE72J3ViAXVy2PCxUCoHyK9/74K2Oxxv1/tY5u9SlWvWaymF/foWGz4XJrt13JdFlT47w==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(66476007)(64756008)(76116006)(66446008)(9686003)(91956017)(86362001)(71200400001)(2906002)(186003)(8936002)(83380400001)(66946007)(33656002)(19627235002)(55016002)(7696005)(52536014)(53546011)(316002)(19627405001)(66556008)(8676002)(110136005)(5660300002)(478600001)(6506007)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR11MB408147391192E799BA0CEBF1C8360BN6PR11MB4081namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: daf98e62-ca74-449c-ff06-08d860ea4d45
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Sep 2020 00:31:10.6312 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tg2duMGYaR5PiibwRrNoCBwM7fn5iUb7aekzW6mIFzdj1YmJhFb04phv4mwrsFi/dkpw99p3QDdqeiaZ7aKB0A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB3907
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/srcomp/t9a7SRMaq0XNWdpT7ILBpx1hkW0>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Comments on 3.1.3. REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY
X-BeenThere: srcomp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <srcomp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/srcomp/>
List-Post: <mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:31:16 -0000

Hi everyone, the rationale was transcribed incorrectly from the original email to the spreadsheet/document.  The email stated:

Rationale: Efficiency in bits on the wire and forwarding state are both important.  Optimizing one at the expense of the other may lead to issues in implementations.

This can be improved to take an operators point of view:

Rationale: Increasing the forwarding state in an ASIC results in an increase in memory usage.  Greater memory usage can result in greater costs for operators, or limit functionality.

Darren



________________________________
From: Srcomp <srcomp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 5:57 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Comments on 3.1.3. REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY


Hi Ron,



We may try to provide some text of rationale before dropping it?



I think the state efficiency is important for a solution. But some optimizations can reduce the state of a solution for sure.



How about let’s try to provide a better rationale and metric. When we are analyzing solutions, some conditions can be provided to adjust the results?





I try to add some text of the rationale.



   o  Rationale: Additional state will increase the complexity of control plane and data plane at a node. Also, removing per-flow state at middle nodes is the key advantage of SR architecture, which can simplify the network. The compression solution SHOULD NOT introduce extra state.



Regarding the Metric, does the state equal to the number of FIB entries? I doubt that.



   o  Metric:The state efficiency metric (S) records the number of

      additional FIB entries (states) required by the proposed solution.



      *  S(node parameters): the number of additional FIB entries for a

         node, given a set of node parameters consisting of number of

         nodes in the network, number of local interface, number of

         adjacencies.





Respect,

Cheng











From: Srcomp [mailto:srcomp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 3:27 AM
To: srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>
Subject: [Srcomp] Comments on 3.1.3. REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY



Folks,



The description and the rationale are identical. Lacking rationale to justify this requirement, we should drop it.



The metric regarding  REQ-8-17-STATE-EFFICIENCY assumes that one can infer how many FIB entries a particular compression mechanism requires. It ignores the fact that a FIB can be organized in many ways. Some organizations will have more FIB entries than others.



Unless we can develop a better metric, this requirement should be dropped.





                                             Ron





Juniper Business Use Only