Instant Congestion Assessment Network (iCAN) for Traffic Engineering
draft-liu-ican-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            J. Dang
Internet-Draft                                                    B. Liu
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 7, 2020                                             G. Yang
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                  K. Lee
                                                                   LG U+
                                                        November 4, 2019

  Instant Congestion Assessment Network (iCAN) for Traffic Engineering
                           draft-liu-ican-01

Abstract

   This draft proposes a new technology named iCAN (instant Congestion
   Assessment Network), which represents a set of mechanisms running
   directly on network nodes.  These mechanisms allow the nodes
   adjusting the flows' paths based on real-time measurement of the
   candidate paths.  The measurement is to reflect the congestion
   situation of each path, so that the nodes could decide which flows
   need to be switched from a path to another.

   This is something that current TE technologies can hardly achieve.
   In current TE, the paths are usually planned in a certralized
   controller, which is far from the data plane, thus neither be able to
   assess the real-time congestion situation of each path, nor able to
   assure the data plane always go as expected (especially in SRv6
   scenarios).  In a result, traditional TE is not able to adjust the
   flow paths in real-time to fit for the change of traffic instantly.

   iCAN can work with traditional TE perfectly: the controller plans
   multi-path transmission in relatively long period (e.g. minutes), and
   iCAN does the flow path optimization in a much shorter interval (e.g.
   milliseconds).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Dang, et al.               Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    iCAN                     November 2019

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Background Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Latency issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Microburst issue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Gap Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Load balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  SLA assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.3.  High availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  iCAN Architecture and Key Technical Requirements  . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Key technical requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Path quality assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  Recognition and statistic of flows in devices . . . .   9
       3.2.3.  Flow switching between paths  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Use Cases and Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Network load balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.1.  Multiple-access in backbone networks  . . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.2.  Multiple paths in metro network . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  SLA assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Fine-Granularity reliability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Show full document text