IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 03 December 2022 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2884DC14CEE1 for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ok5ljBom9uY for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62C76C14CF02 for <tsv-area@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id o5so13212143wrm.1 for <tsv-area@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 14:04:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RVlykw22bi1ORVMr4fyxX2oertql3LI6vrZeWUZX7kw=; b=Ar2vA/hfB7rqNXgFuHpOwcUs7AEir9nR7gfzg2E0KwPcSAJ6QX+OgTXpcZgH0tqenY su7Sp02wL5u/kilDsAH6vI3Akn9UjvfrPPBsazFKb2YueJQeV8lNPqudyDVAspln6Nma PGQbLvl21Q4xjX2QHaOvYN3nwua48+Cb/Y/OcUBzkxu0eLNUCV51U/AWEvDh/PkTZ+NQ Iz3+aCO/bfOpLAJFKKQ52o0OSbXcDFKKfaRr6QIiNo6HHQPiBJym9s3OslYw1+Q5bS1H 84aNCxFeq1x9AxSDrqCGCpJ60bBJ3EfH/JLSav0nuOnYFtKI1h+jGHWxskRPipr1EzJc 1HHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=RVlykw22bi1ORVMr4fyxX2oertql3LI6vrZeWUZX7kw=; b=33yDIUV5QzAMnuxz3zmpLkL+QaeUZYOO9lk9UpSeNt/qByo1MoBpVTN1L7tlAKEUah aaJHrUSULuyW50kxt+S/lUL8SY/zekz8mzFAEy3gzjf7pLnFb8gNiWxCIuzy9hOc76di 1bSzbeiseiiCNMn7bPJAXqgLlrH/lTBaSMwDTQrPUogeZXuJONwgPe5H8CzEnY7snZYu 0ydKDT6zJ7cOkCQjHGwo7yUB5xjk9UXH4soO/3aChJAwF06OheD6uoActqjpPB0cyXj7 gqR6yBqfXptXb5JXGgyvqYBSNzP7NyyW7DEjkHnRlHE54FAbVWVbN13Cdir1prHBZrVQ 5OQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnqffW38LwO6x6t3CZEtvVC1lcw3JcyuaFhvoxWMnaaQ8dLDMiP NNnTUSYQH4BbGbrk6MHmlGZZpM50g19lJVWjMdSeLA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6sTBNao9Mnz3bwkS3YI3PMZMB08dgoYEobrERXD8eQwRMPBtHvtqfsP5uf7IkCj1/KGhK2KHmZMsF1JX3d3Wo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6089:0:b0:241:e85c:f769 with SMTP id w9-20020a5d6089000000b00241e85cf769mr32450472wrt.69.1670105082265; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 14:04:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y4ovyV074qa3gLSu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3cbaf92c-3dc5-01d5-570d-a5ee90f138e0@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3cbaf92c-3dc5-01d5-570d-a5ee90f138e0@kit.edu>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 23:06:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGU74DJ14DdX83xKBQkEOFo+ebdhECK0dM7K7Df+Yx2Og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols
To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, routing-discussion@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a9e6205eef3a44f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/E-R31joD06RTfRD254qi2-SItic>
X-BeenThere: tsv-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <tsv-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 22:04:48 -0000

Hi,

> I think one has to distinguish where the bottleneck is:
> 1) link bandwidth (link congestion)
> 2) routing message processing (CPU congestion)

Actually it is much more complex than that.

The most often bottlenecks I have seen were either narrow channel into
RE/RP blades at a given router or  drop at ingress when competing with
transit traffic where queuing and data plane were not properly designed to
recognize control plane packets and handle it differently then transit the
moment packet hits the electrons on ingress int.

Thx
r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email