1. [SM-specific] The sustainable aggregate rate (SAR) for the given
ingress-egress-aggregate is estimated using the formula:
SAR = U * NM-Rate
for the latest reported interval, where U is a configurable
factor greater than one which is the same for all ingress-egress-
aggregates. In effect, the value of the PCN-supportable-rate for
each link is approximated by the expression
U*PCN-admissible-rate
rather than being calculated explicitly.
Tom Taylor
On 12/03/2012 2:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I am very confused about the state of this. My skimming of the thread seems to indicate at least one unresolved issue. Russ On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:The clarification on U is very helpful. I look forward to comments from others on the routing based behavior / ECMP text removal / replacement question. On 1/2/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Menth wrote:Hi Joel, hi Tom, Am 02.01.2012 18:18, schrieb Joel M. Halpern:Michael, I am not sure what to make of your recommended text abut ECMP. ECMP is used by almost all operators. It is generally considered a necessary tool in the tool-kit. More significantly, at least for the egress understanding of the ingress, it is not even the single operator's ECMP, but other operators selections of paths that produce the issue. So even in the unlikely event that this operator does not use ECMP, it still is not sufficient.Then I better leave the ECMP issue for others to answer. The definition of U can be better corrected as follows (improved rewording of my previous email): U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain. -> U is a domain-wide constant which implicitly defines the PCN-supportable-rate by U*PCN-admissible-rate on all links of the PCN domain. Best wishes, MichaelYours, Joel On 1/2/2012 11:54 AM, Michael Menth wrote:Hi Tom, hi Joel, I wish you a happy new year! Here are my comments to address Joel's concerns: ==================================================================== The issue with ECMP: I'd add a comment that CL and SM should not be in the presence of ECMP if routing information is used to determine ingress-egress-aggregates since this seems to be messy and error-prone. ==================================================================== The following text may clarify at the beginning of Section 3.3.2 the relation between admission control and flow termination to address one of Joel's comments (for both SM and CL): In the presence of light pre-congestion, i.e., in the presence of a small, positive ETM-rate (relative to the overall PCN traffic rate), new flows may already be blocked. However, in the presence of heavy pre-congestion, i.e., in the presence of a relatively large ETM-rate, termination of some admitted flows is required. Thus, flow blocking is logical prerequisite for flow termination. ==================================================================== The following sentence in 3.3.2 should be corrected (only SM-specific): U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain. -> U represents the ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to PCN-admissible-rate for all the links of the PCN-domain. ==================================================================== I also recommend to change the following text as I think it may cause misinterpretations (applies both to SM and CL): If the difference calculated in the second step is positive, the Decision Point SHOULD select PCN-flows to terminate, until it determines that the PCN-traffic admission rate will no longer be greater than the estimated sustainable aggregate rate. If the Decision Point knows the bandwidth required by individual PCN-flows (e.g., from resource signalling used to establish the flows), it MAY choose to complete its selection of PCN-flows to terminate in a single round of decisions. Alternatively, the Decision Point MAY spread flow termination over multiple rounds to avoid over-termination. If this is done, it is RECOMMENDED that enough time elapse between successive rounds of termination to allow the effects of previous rounds to be reflected in the measurements upon which the termination decisions are based. (See [IEEE-Satoh] and sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [MeLe10].) -> If the difference calculated in the second step is positive (traffic rate to be terminated), the Decision Point SHOULD select PCN-flows to terminate. To that end, the Decision Point MAY use upper rate limits for individual PCN-flows (e.g., from resource signalling used to establish the flows) and select a set of flows whose sum of upper rate limits is up to the traffic rate to be terminated. Then, these flows are terminated. The use of upper limits on flow rates avoids over-termination. Termination may be continuously needed after consecutive measurement intervals for various reasons, e.g., if the used upper rate limits overestimate the actual flow rates. For such cases it is RECOMMENDED that enough time elapses between successive termination events to allow the effects of previous termination events to be reflected in the measurements upon which the termination decisions are based; otherwise, over-termination may occur. See [IEEE-Satoh] and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [MeLe10]. ==================================================================== [IEEE-Satoh] is not a good key for Daisuke's work as the prefix "IEEE" makes it look like a reference to a standards document. You better use [SaUe10] or [Satoh10]. Applies both to CL and SM. Best wishes, Michael Am 02.01.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Taylor:It shall be as you say, subject to comment from my co-authors when they get back from holiday. On 01/01/2012 5:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:In-line... On 1/1/2012 4:06 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:On 01/01/2012 2:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:Thank you for responding promptly Tom. Let me try to elaborate on the two issues where I was unclear. On the ingress-egress-aggregate issue and ECMP, the concern I have is relative to the third operational alternative where routing is used to determine where the ingress and egress of a flow is. To be blunt, as far as I can tell this does not work. 1) It does not work on the ingress side because traffic from a given source prefix can come in at multiple places. Some of these places may claim reachability to the source prefix. Some may not. While a given flow will use only one of these paths, there is no way to determine from routing information, at the egress, which ingress that flow used. 2) A site may use multiple exits for a given destination prefix. Again, while the site will only use one of these egresses for a given flow, there is no way for the ingress to know which egress it will be on the basis of routing information. Thus, the text seems to allow for a behavior that simply does not work.[PTT] I think the disconnect here is that you read the text to say that an individual node uses routing information to determine the IEA. That wasn't the intention. Instead, administrators use routing information to derive filters that are installed at the ingress and egress nodes.As far as I can tell, your response describes a situation even less effective than what I assumed. Firstly, it does not matter whether it is the edge node, the decision node, or the human administrator. Routing information is not enough to determine what the ingress-egress pairing is. The problems I describe above apply no matter who is making the decision. Secondly, having a human make the decision means that as soon as routing changes, the configured filters are wrong. I would suggest that the text in question be removed, and replaced with a warning against attempting what is currently described.My view is also that CL ans SM do not work in the presence of ECMP. This should be indicated as a warning.I am still confused about the relationship of section 3.3.2 to the behavior you describe. 3.3.2 says that as long as any excess traffic is being reported, teh decision point shall direct the blocking of additional flows. That does not match 3.3.1, and does not match your description.[PTT] I can't see the text in section 3.3.2 that says you continue to block as long as any excess traffic is being reported. What I think it says is that as long as excess traffic is reported, the decision point checks to see whether the traffic being admitted to the aggregate exceeds the supportable level. Excess traffic may be non-zero, yet no termination may be required (i.e., traffic is below the second threshold).I think I see what you are saying. If I am reading this correctly, the decision process must re-calculate to determine if there is termination every time it receives a report with non-zero excess and the port is already blocked. But it does not have to actually block anything. This however seems to depend upon the correct relative configuration of the limit that flips it into blocked state, the value of U, and maybe some other values. Put differently, I understand that the two are not contradictory. However, since the two things use different calculations, it is not at all clear that they are consistent. This may well be acceptable. But the difference in methods is likely to lead to confusion. So, as a minor (rather than major) comment, I would suggest that you provide clarifying text explaining why it is okay to use one condition to decide if there is blocking, but a different condition (which could produce a lower threshold) to decide how much to get rid of. Yours, JoelYours, Joel On 1/1/2012 2:48 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:Thanks for the review, Joel. Comments below, marked with [PTT]. On 31/12/2011 4:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08 PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 31-Dec-2011 IETF LC End Date: 13-Jan-2012 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This documents is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Question: Given that the document defines a complex set of behaviors, which are mandatory for compliant systems, it seems that this ought to be Experimental rather than Informational. It describes something that could, in theory, later become standards track.[PTT] OK, we've wobbled on this one, but we can follow your suggestion.Major issues: Section 2 on Assumed Core Network Behavior for SM, in the third bullet, states that the PCN-domain satisfies the conditions specified in RFC 5696. Unfortunately, look at RFC 5696 I can not tell what conditions these are. Is this supposed to be a reference to RFC 5559 instead? No matter which document it is referencing, please be more specific about which section / conditions are meant.[PTT] You are right that RFC 5696 isn't relevant. It's such a long time since that text was written that I can't recall what the intention was. My inclination at the moment is simply to delete the bullet.It would have been helpful if the early part of the document indicated that the edge node information about how to determine ingress-egress-aggregates was described in section 5. In conjunction with that, section 5.1.2, third paragraph, seems to describe an option which does not seem to quite work. After describing how to use tunneling, and how to work with signaling, the text refers to inferring the ingress-egress-aggregate from the routing information. In the presence of multiple equal-cost domain exits (which does occur in reality), the routing table is not sufficient information to make this determination. Unless I am very confused (which does happen) this seems to be a serious hole in the specification.[PTT] I'm not sure what the issue is here. As I understand it, operators don't assign packets randomly to a given path in the presence of alternatives -- they choose one based on values in the packet header. The basic intent is that packets of a given microflow all follow the same path, to prevent unnecessary reordering and minimize jitter. The implication is that filters can be defined at the ingress nodes to identify the packets in a given ingress-egress-aggregate (i.e. flowing from a specific ingress node to a specific egress node) based on their header contents. The filters to do the same job at egress nodes are a different problem, but they are not affected by ECMP.Minor issues: Section 3.3.1 states that the "block" decision occurs when the CLE (excess over total) rate exceeds the configured limit. However, section 3.3.2 states that the decision node must take further stapes if the excess rate is non-zero in further reports. Is this inconsistency deliberate? If so, please explain. If not, please fix. (If it is important to drive the excess rate to 0, then why is action only initiated when the ratio is above a configured value, rather than any non-zero value? I can conceive of various reasons. But none are stated.)[PTT] We aren't driving the excess rate to zero, but to a value equal to something less than (U - 1)/U. (The "something less" is because of packet dropping at interior nodes.) The assumption is that (U - 1)/U is greater than CLE-limit. Conceptually, PCN uses two thresholds. When the CLE is below the first threshold, new flows are admitted. Above that threshold, they are blocked. When the CLE is above the second threshold, flows are terminated to bring them down to that threshold. In the SM mode of operation, the first threshold is specified directly on a per-link basis by the value CLE-limit. The second threshold is specified by the same value (U - 1)/U for all links. With the CL mode of operation the second threshold is also specified directly for each link.Nits/editorial comments:_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
