Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)]

Thanks. Much better!

> Am 06.12.2018 um 15:08 schrieb Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:18 AM Stewart Bryant  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/12/2018 07:55, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> > Hi Spencer, Stewart, Joel,
> >
> > Thanks for the discussion about the congestion adaptation. We agree the 
> > reactive congestion adaptation may need further investigation.
> >
> > Thus in order to solve Mirja's comment, we plan to make that example more 
> > generic with something like:
> >
> > "For example, the collected information could be used for traffic 
> > monitoring, and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according 
> > to operator's policy."
> 
> Sounds much better.
> 
> I defer to Mirja since this is her ballot, but that sounds much more sane to 
> me :-)
> 
> Thanks for considering my comment on Mirja's comment!
> 
> Spencer
>  
> Stewart
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM
> >> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart
> >> Bryant 
> >> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Mirja Kuehlewind
> >> ; IESG ;
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was that
> >> one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path 
> >> became
> >> infeasible.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> >>> Hi, Stewart,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
> >>> mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>   This is Mirja's comment, but ...
> 
>   On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
>   mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> 
>   Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>   draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> 
>   When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>   to all
>   email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>   cut this
>   introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
>   Please refer to
>   https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>   for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> >> positions.
> 
>   The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>   here:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit
>  y/
> 
> 
> 
>   
>  --
>   COMMENT:
> 
>  -
>  -
> 
>   One comment on section 1:
>   "For example, they can shift some flows
> from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
>   controller
>  or PCE [RFC4655]."
>   I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
>   dynamic traffic
>   adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C
> 
> 
>   I'm agreeing with Mirja here.
> 
>   We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
>   adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
>   repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
>   without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
>   incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
>   repeatedly.
> >>>  Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage
> >>>  and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
> >>>  metric.
> >>>
>   I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I
>   haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.
> 
>   Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
>   underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.
> >>>  There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!
> >>>
> >>>  Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with
> >>>  a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not
> >>>  a satisfactory choice either.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).
> >>>
> >>> Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL
> >>> congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network
> >>> path is congested", so now we're talking about suitable 

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:18 AM Stewart Bryant 
wrote:

>
>
> On 06/12/2018 07:55, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> > Hi Spencer, Stewart, Joel,
> >
> > Thanks for the discussion about the congestion adaptation. We agree the
> reactive congestion adaptation may need further investigation.
> >
> > Thus in order to solve Mirja's comment, we plan to make that example
> more generic with something like:
> >
> > "For example, the collected information could be used for traffic
> monitoring, and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according
> to operator's policy."
>
> Sounds much better.
>

I defer to Mirja since this is her ballot, but that sounds much more sane
to me :-)

Thanks for considering my comment on Mirja's comment!

Spencer


> Stewart
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM
> >> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart
> >> Bryant 
> >> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Mirja Kuehlewind
> >> ; IESG ;
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was
> that
> >> one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path
> became
> >> infeasible.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> >>> Hi, Stewart,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
> >>> mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>   This is Mirja's comment, but ...
> 
>   On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
>   mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> 
>   Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>   draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> 
>   When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
> reply
>   to all
>   email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
> to
>   cut this
>   introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
>   Please refer to
>   https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>   for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> >> positions.
> 
>   The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>   here:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit
>  y/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
>   COMMENT:
> 
>  -
>  -
> 
>   One comment on section 1:
>   "For example, they can shift some flows
> from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
>   controller
>  or PCE [RFC4655]."
>   I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
>   dynamic traffic
>   adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C
> 
> 
>   I'm agreeing with Mirja here.
> 
>   We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
>   adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
>   repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
>   without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
>   incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
>   repeatedly.
> >>>  Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one
> stage
> >>>  and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
> >>>  metric.
> >>>
>   I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but
> I
>   haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.
> 
>   Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
>   underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.
> >>>  There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!
> >>>
> >>>  Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp
> with
> >>>  a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is
> not
> >>>  a satisfactory choice either.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).
> >>>
> >>> Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL
> >>> congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network
> >>> path is congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of
> >>> "STILL". I was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that
> >>> "permanent" path characteristics is a happy 

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Stewart Bryant]

On 06/12/2018 07:55, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:

Hi Spencer, Stewart, Joel,

Thanks for the discussion about the congestion adaptation. We agree the 
reactive congestion adaptation may need further investigation.

Thus in order to solve Mirja's comment, we plan to make that example more 
generic with something like:

"For example, the collected information could be used for traffic monitoring, and 
could optionally be used for traffic optimization according to operator's policy."


Sounds much better.

Stewart



Best regards,
Jie


-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart
Bryant 
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Mirja Kuehlewind
; IESG ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was that
one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path became
infeasible.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

Hi, Stewart,

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:



 On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

 This is Mirja's comment, but ...

 On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
 mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:

 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
 draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection

 When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
 to all
 email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
 cut this
 introductory paragraph, however.)


 Please refer to
 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
 for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT

positions.


 The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
 here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit
y/



 --
 COMMENT:

-
-

 One comment on section 1:
 "For example, they can shift some flows
   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
 controller
    or PCE [RFC4655]."
 I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
 dynamic traffic
 adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C


 I'm agreeing with Mirja here.

 We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
 adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
 repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
 without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
 incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
 repeatedly.

 Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage
 and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
 metric.


 I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I
 haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.

 Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
 underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.

 There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!

 Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with
 a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not
 a satisfactory choice either.


Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).

Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL
congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network
path is congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of
"STILL". I was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that
"permanent" path characteristics is a happy idea we aren't likely to
see in practice.

Do the right thing, of course ;-)

Spencer

 - Stewart


 Spencer




___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Spencer, Stewart, Joel, 

Thanks for the discussion about the congestion adaptation. We agree the 
reactive congestion adaptation may need further investigation. 

Thus in order to solve Mirja's comment, we plan to make that example more 
generic with something like:

"For example, the collected information could be used for traffic monitoring, 
and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according to operator's 
policy."

Best regards,
Jie

> -Original Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart
> Bryant 
> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Mirja Kuehlewind
> ; IESG ;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was that
> one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path became
> infeasible.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> > Hi, Stewart,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
> > mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> >> This is Mirja's comment, but ...
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
> >> mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> >>
> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> >> to all
> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> >> cut this
> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Please refer to
> >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> >>
> >>
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> >> here:
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit
> >> y/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> --
> >> COMMENT:
> >>
> >> -
> >> -
> >>
> >> One comment on section 1:
> >> "For example, they can shift some flows
> >>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
> >> controller
> >>    or PCE [RFC4655]."
> >> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
> >> dynamic traffic
> >> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm agreeing with Mirja here.
> >>
> >> We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
> >> adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
> >> repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
> >> without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
> >> incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
> >> repeatedly.
> >
> > Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage
> > and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
> > metric.
> >
> >>
> >> I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I
> >> haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.
> >>
> >> Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
> >> underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.
> >
> > There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!
> >
> > Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with
> > a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not
> > a satisfactory choice either.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).
> >
> > Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL
> > congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network
> > path is congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of
> > "STILL". I was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that
> > "permanent" path characteristics is a happy idea we aren't likely to
> > see in practice.
> >
> > Do the right thing, of course ;-)
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > - Stewart
> >
> >>
> >> Spencer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Mirja, 

Thanks a lot for your review and comments. 

How about we replace that sentence with something like:

"For example, the collected information could be used for traffic monitoring, 
and could optionally be used for traffic optimization according to operator's 
policy."

Best regards,
Jie

> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2018 12:13 AM
> To: The IESG 
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> One comment on section 1:
> "For example, they can shift some flows
>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
>or PCE [RFC4655]."
> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic
> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. Can you maybe choose a
> different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally
> network monitoring? Thanks!
> 

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Joel M. Halpern]

The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was 
that one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected 
path became infeasible.


Yours,
Joel

On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

Hi, Stewart,

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant > wrote:




On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

This is Mirja's comment, but ...

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind
mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/



--
COMMENT:
--

One comment on section 1:
"For example, they can shift some flows
  from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN
controller
   or PCE [RFC4655]."
I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for
dynamic traffic
adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C


I'm agreeing with Mirja here.

We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic
adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was
repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute
without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical
incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation
repeatedly.


Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage
and had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed
metric.



I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I
haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.

Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.


There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!

Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with
a suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not
a satisfactory choice either.


Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).

Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL 
congested" is safer than "I should do something because the network path 
is congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of 
"STILL". I was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that 
"permanent" path characteristics is a happy idea we aren't likely to see 
in practice.


Do the right thing, of course ;-)

Spencer

- Stewart



Spencer





___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF]

Hi, Stewart,

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant 
wrote:

>
>
> On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> This is Mirja's comment, but ...
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind 
> wrote:
>
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> COMMENT:
>> --
>>
>> One comment on section 1:
>> "For example, they can shift some flows
>>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
>>or PCE [RFC4655]."
>> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic
>> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C
>
>
> I'm agreeing with Mirja here.
>
> We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic adaptation.
> Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was repeating "you can't
> react based on changes to that attribute without taking chances on
> oscillation" like it was a mystical incantation, and I wasn't the first AD
> to have that conversation repeatedly.
>
>
> Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage and
> had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed metric.
>
>
> I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I haven't
> heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.
>
> Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
> underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.
>
>
> There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!
>
> Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with a
> suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not a
> satisfactory choice either.
>

Yeah, that's where I was headed (stated more coherently).

Saying "I should do something, because the network path is STILL congested"
is safer than "I should do something because the network path is
congested", so now we're talking about suitable definitions of "STILL". I
was shooting for that with "persistent", and agree that "permanent" path
characteristics is a happy idea we aren't likely to see in practice.

Do the right thing, of course ;-)

Spencer


> - Stewart
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
>
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Stewart Bryant]

On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

This is Mirja's comment, but ...

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind > wrote:


Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/



--
COMMENT:
--

One comment on section 1:
"For example, they can shift some flows
  from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
   or PCE [RFC4655]."
I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic
traffic
adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C


I'm agreeing with Mirja here.

We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic adaptation. 
Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was repeating "you 
can't react based on changes to that attribute without taking chances 
on oscillation" like it was a mystical incantation, and I wasn't the 
first AD to have that conversation repeatedly.


Yes, I understand the ARPA net had exactly that problem at one stage and 
had to be converted from using a delay based metric to a fixed metric.




I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I 
haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.


Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to 
underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.


There is no such thing as permanent in network paths!

Like many control problems the first order solution is to damp with a 
suitably long time constant, but  infinity, i.e. permanent, is not a 
satisfactory choice either.


- Stewart



Spencer



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF]

This is Mirja's comment, but ...

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind 
wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> One comment on section 1:
> "For example, they can shift some flows
>   from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
>or PCE [RFC4655]."
> I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic
> adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C


I'm agreeing with Mirja here.

We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic adaptation.
Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was repeating "you can't
react based on changes to that attribute without taking chances on
oscillation" like it was a mystical incantation, and I wasn't the first AD
to have that conversation repeatedly.

I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I haven't
heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course.

Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to
underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn.

Spencer


> an you maybe choose a
> different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally
> network monitoring? Thanks!
>
>
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg