ATM would give us event better visibility ;-)
I’m not advocating for a particular solution, nor expressing my liking of anything proposed, just stating that there a business need, especially for those, migrating from RSVP-TE to SR. There’s big difference between per LSP (not per flow) networking state and accounting in a system… Perhaps obvious – the value of an architecture is not in its abstract beauty (which I fully appreciate) but in its usability and value created. Cheers, Jeff From: Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:21 To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, mpls <m...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>, draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths If so, why not directly use RSVP-TE if the per flow state is needed? 徐小虎 Xuxiaohu M：+86-13910161692 E：xuxia...@huawei.com 产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部 Products & Solutions-Network Strategy & Business Development Dept 发件人： Jeff Tantsura 收件人： Robert Raszuk<rob...@raszuk.net> 抄送： Xuxiaohu<xuxia...@huawei.com>;Greg Mirsky<gregimir...@gmail.com>;spring<spring@ietf.org>;mpls<m...@ietf.org>;Zafar Ali (zali)<z...@cisco.com>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org> 主题： Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths 时间： 2017-11-16 11:09:13 Today, if you run RSVP-TE, you’d get (at least on high end platforms) counters per LSP. Having the same functionality with SR seems rather logical. Cheers, Jeff From: <rras...@gmail.com> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 10:50 To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, mpls <m...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>, draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths As explained it is not needed to get all information required per path. Yes you may have N:1 mapping of flows to path so what is the problem ? thx r. On Nov 16, 2017 10:47, "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Robert, HW counters are rather precious resources, but that’s beside the point. An architecture is not an immutable object, on contrary, a very import property of a good architecture is flexibility and agility, ability to adapt when business need arises. Keeping semantics aside – what’s needed, is a metadata (here encoded as a label) that uniquely identifies a path, where FIB lookup would yield an “counter hit”, potentially counter creation if the packet is the first packet in the flow. Value of the label would be hashed in the counter ID that is unique and could be resolved by a management layer into accounting record. Cheers, Jeff From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 10:26 To: Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com> Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, mpls <m...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com>, draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths The architecture is fine. This is accounting state not forwarding state. But no new labels are needed. See on ingress you apply sr label stack based on some match of the fields of actual packet. So all you need is to do accounting on the very same fields of the packets on egress and you have path accounting required for you. Besides this method also seamlessly works over non sr capable SFs as long as such SFs do not mess with the packet content of those tuples. cheers, r. On Nov 16, 2017 10:05, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxia...@huawei.com> wrote: Concur. Although it has some values, it's not cost-efficient from my point of view. Network simplicity should be the first priority object. Hence we would have to make some compromise. Best regards, Xiaohu 徐小虎 Xuxiaohu M：+86-13910161692 E：xuxia...@huawei.com 产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部 Products & Solutions-Network Strategy & Business Development Dept 发件人： Zafar Ali (zali) 收件人： Greg Mirsky<gregimir...@gmail.com>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org>;mpls<m...@ietf.org>;spring<spring@ietf.org> 主题： Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths 时间： 2017-11-16 02:24:10 Hi, This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, which states: “SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.” In addition to creating states at transit and egress nodes, the procedure also affects the data plane and makes it unscalable. It also makes controller job much harder and error prune. In summary, I find the procedure very complex and unscalable. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM To: "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org>, "m...@ietf.org" <m...@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Hi Shraddha, thank you for very well written and thought through draft. I have these questions I'd like to discuss: · Have you thought of using not one special purpose label for both SR Path Identifier and SR Path Identifier+Source SID cases but request two special purpose labels, one for each case. Then the SR Path Identifier would not have to lose the bit for C flag. · And how you envision to collect the counters along the path? Of course, a Controller may query LSR for all counters or counters for the particular flow (SR Path Identifier+Source SID). But in addition I'd propose to use in-band mechanism, perhaps another special purpose label, to trigger the LSR to send counters of the same flow with the timestamp out-band to the predefined Collector. · And the last, have you considered ability to flush counters per flow. In Scalability Considerations you've stated that counters are maintained as long as collection of statistics is enabled. If that is on the node scope, you may have to turn off/on the collection to flush off some old counters. I think that finer granularity, per flow granularity would be useful for operators. Again, perhaps the flow itself may be used to signal the end of the measurement and trigger release of counters. Regards, Greg _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
