Dear authors,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
- Section 1:
Networks extensively use link aggregation groups (LAG) [802.1AX] and
equal cost multi-paths (ECMP) [RFC 2991] as techniques for capacity
scaling. For the problems addressed by this document, network traffic
can be predominantly categorized into two traffic types: long-lived
large flows and other flows.
...
This draft describes mechanisms for optimal LAG/ECMP component link
utilization while using hash-based techniques. The mechanisms
comprise the following steps -- recognizing_large flows_ in a router;
and assigning the large flows to specific LAG/ECMP component links or
redistributing the small flows when a component link on the router is
congested.
It is useful to keep in mind that in typical use cases for this
mechanism the_large flows_ are those that consume a significant amount
of bandwidth on a link, e.g. greater than 5% of link bandwidth. The
number of such flows would necessarily be fairly small, e.g. on the
order of 10's or 100's per LAG/ECMP. In other words, the number of
_ large flows_ is NOT expected to be on the order of millions of flows.
Examples of such large flows would be IPsec tunnels in service
provider backbone networks or storage backup traffic in data center
networks.
3 instances of "large flows": do you mean "long-lived large flows"?
If not, why do you make a distinction between long-lived large flows and
other flows in the first paragraph?
I eventually understood the source of confusion when I read the
terminology section:
Large flow(s): long-lived large flow(s)
Either use capitalized term in the Intro section (actually throughout
the doc.) so that we understand that the term is defined somewhere, or
make it clear in the intro that large flow(s) = long-lived large flow(s)
-
This document presents improved load distribution techniques based on
the large flow awareness.
Improved compared to?
-
In several places, starting with the title and abstract, you speak about
mechanisms (plural).
However, looking at section 4.2, it seems that you propose a single
mechanism? Or maybe you consider 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 as different mechanisms?
-
Step 3) On receiving the alert about the congested component link,
the operator, through a central management entity, finds the large
flows mapped to that component link and the LAG/ECMP group to which
the component link belongs.
Step 4) The operator can choose to rebalance the large flows on
lightly loaded component links of the LAG/ECMP group or redistribute
the small flows on the congested link to other component links of the
group. The operator, through a central management entity, can choose
one of the following actions:
1) Indicate specific large flows to rebalance;
2) Have the router decide the best large flows to rebalance;
3) Have the router redistribute all the small flows on the
congested link to other component links in the group.
"Indicate specific large flows to rebalance", "through a central
management entity", what you describe is basically traffic engineering.
Other the other hand, for 2) and 3), why do you need a central
management entity?
-
A number of routers support sampling techniques such as sFlow [sFlow-
v5, sFlow-LAG], PSAMP [RFC 5475] and NetFlow Sampling [RFC 3954].
For the purpose of large flow identification, sampling must be
enabled on all of the egress ports in the router where such
measurements are desired.
I don't understand the second sentence.
One way to read this is: sampling must be _enabled _on all of the
egress ports where such measurements are desired.
Ok, this is an obvious statement. If the measurements are desired,
enable them
Or maybe you want to say: _sampling _must be enabled on all of the
egress ports where such measurements are desired.
This is a false statement: if you have the choice between sampling
and non sampling, use non sampling measurements.
Or maybe you want to say: sampling must be enabled on _all _of the
egress ports where such measurements are desired.
This is a false statement: if I have ECMP on 2 links, and only one
of them can't do non sampling, then we should not force
sampling on both links.
You see, I'm confused.
You miss a couple of key messages:
- if unsampled measurements are available, use those.
- egress means where LAG/ECMP are enabled (this is important for the
paragraph starting with "If egress sampling is not available, ingress
sampling can suffice since the central management entity use")
-
If egress sampling is not available, ingress sampling can suffice
since the central management entity used by the sampling technique
typically has multi-node visibility and can use the samples from an
immediately downstream node to make measurements for egress traffic
at the local node.
It's not clear if "ingress" means the ingress interface of the router
itself, or the ingress interface of the downstream router.
A drawing is required.
Both options are possible:
1. ingress interfaces on the router where LAG/ECMP is initiated
flow monitoring must be enabled on all ingress interfaces
flow monitoring must have a way to know the egress interfaces
2. ingress interfaces of the downstream router
only work for LAG or ECMP single hop
ingress interfaces = all components from LAG/ECMP (multiple
ifIndex, typically)
this entire section 4.3.3 needs some improvements
-
On one side, you wrote "Specific algorithms for placement of large flows
are out of scope of this document.". On the other side, "The following
parameters are required the configuration of _this_ feature". It seems
contradictory.
It's unclear why you need the following parameter:
. Imbalance threshold: the difference between the utilization of
the least utilized and most utilized component links. Expressed
as a percentage of link speed.
Also, does ECMP/LAG always require equivalent link speed for their components?
-
5.2. System Configuration and Identification Parameters
. IP address: The IP address of a specific router that the
feature is being configured on, or that the large flow placement
is being applied to.
. LAG ID: Identifies the LAG. The LAG ID may be required when
configuring this feature (to apply a specific set of large flow
identification parameters to the LAG) and will be required when
specifying flow placement to achieve the desired rebalancing.
. Component Link ID: Identifies the component link within a LAG.
This is required when specifying flow placement to achieve the
desired rebalancing.
Nothing regarding ECMP?
-
For high speed links, the etherStatsHighCapacityTable MIB [RFC 3273]
can be used.
Well, only for ethernet.
EDITORIAL:
-
figure 2
OLD:
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
NEW:
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
- The indentation in section 2 is not correct
- "For tunneling protocols like GRE, VXLAN, NVGRE, STT, etc.,"
You need to expand and provide references.
- a PBR rule
Expand.
-
OLD:
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | | |
| | ===> | |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
| (2)|--------|(2) |
NEW:
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | | |
| | ===> | |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
| (2)|--------|(2) |
-
OLD:
The IPFIX information model [RFC 7011]
NEW:
The IPFIX information model [RFC 7012]
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
