Minutes IETF108: lsr
minutes-108-lsr-00

IETF 108 LSR Meeting

Chairs: Acee Lindem
        Chris Hopps

Secretary: Yingzhen Qu

Date: Thursday, 30 July 2020
Time: 14:10 - 15:50 UTC

1 Administrivia and WG update
Acee/Chris

Chris H: What is the status of the base network programming draft?
Peter:   SRv6 programming is in AD review, and is progressing in the
         SPRING WG.
Chris H: It still needs to do IETF LC, right? Perhaps there could
         still be issues raised?
Martin:  Yes, it's going to IETF LC. This will happen by the end of the
         week. it could be contentious. From LSR perspective, this
         should progress. The appeal has been cleared.
Chris:   One objection during the appeal was around the penultimate hop
         and that affects the TLV space. We could do LC and submit it to
         IESG, but we don't want to be seen as doing an end-run on the
         process, with people pointing at the TLV saying "see the TLV
         is already there."
Martin:  You need to be careful. I don't expect the network
         programming draft will progress faster. Most concerns were
         about PSP, and the new version has added clarifications and
         use cases. I believe we're on the safe side.
Chris:   Hopefully this will progress between this and next IETF.

2 IGP Flex Algorithm
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/
Peter Psenak

Peter:    Ready for WGLC. There are multiple implementations.
Chris H:  This is reasonable. Any objection? (no) I think it's
          ready moving forward.
Acee:     I will send some editorial comments.
Peter:    Sure.

3 OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/
Ketan Talaulikar

Acee:     Speaking as co-author, we made lots of changes. Please
          read the new version. It now has two TLVs because of new
          use cases.. We'd like to have more reviews before WGLC.

4 Experimental results on IS-IS flooding
Sarah Chen

Acee:     What's the TX interval for PSNP numbers?
Sarah:    1 ms as TX interval.
Chris H:  Thank you. This is fantastic. This is what had been asked
          for during the interim. Is there simulation code available?
Sarah:    I used our production code, and I already put the
          threshold-based PSNP in our production code.
Eduard:   Thanks for the good research. In new production, ISIS
          will typically have some signature for security reasons, like
          MD5, and this adds 100 ms or 200 ms delay, and will
          influence the results. Do you have anything for
          certification purpose?
Sarah:    No.
Acee:     can you put it to the list?
Eduard:   It's long on purpose, for security computation, it
          protects against brute force attacks.
Jeff Haas: Nice to see these things. The results are similar to what
          we see when we did TCP performance tuning in BGP. Tony Li
          confirmed that it's done on real hardware as well. These are
          optimistic results. One concern is in real network, it may
          start to deteriorate. For future, I'd suggest to start
          putting in machinery to start perturbing and see how quickly
          and often things get dropped in bursts. That would simulate
          the real world a bit better.
Sarah:    There are so many parameters that we can tune. The purpose
          of this simple setting is to show the correlation between
          LSP interval and PSNP interval.
Tony P:   I'm assuming the retransmission is done ASAP. Suggesting
          faster PSNP is good idea. I think the combination of this
          hybrid PSNP plus transmit ramping up should solve 99% of the
          problem. That's my guts feeling.
Les:      Echo other people's comments, great work. If the LSP
          transmission interval is 1ms and you have 2000 LSPs, why did
          you take 3 seconds?
Sarah:    it's our implementation. There is some overhead.
Les:      this is great work. Hybrid PSNP is great idea. Given that
          testing doesn't include dynamic adjustments of either drafts,
          so we can't draw conclusion whether the RX-based or TX-based
          approach might be the best one.
Sarah:    The initial work was to test the drafts, but was happy to
          see PSNP works fine and solved the issue.
Bruno:    I'm interested in results from stronger sender, weaker
          receiver. May try multiple senders?
Sarah:    That's a good point.

5 IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-isis-ttz/
Huaimo Chen

Chris H:  As a chair, we wish we had one draft between area proxy
          and TTZ. There are differences. I know the authors tried to
          work together at one point. Since we have multiple proposals,
          that can't seem to come together, we though we would try the
          experimental track and let the market decide. You also said
          most people think it's good, I don't know that's the case.
          I know there are lots of people putting +1 out there, but
          how many implementations? How many operators want to deploy?
          I'm not saying those are barriers to adoption but I'm not
          sure that you can claim most people support. I saw lots of
          experts think this is overly complex, that having zones and smooth
          transition might add some value, but can't justify the complexity.
          So as a chair I want to let you know, if we move forward with this,
          many of the experts with industry knowledge are probably not going
          to review or provide feedback. If this then gets submitted to IESG,
          it will have to be in the report about a very rough consensus on
          the work and that many experts in the group did not agree
          with it.

Acee:     With chair hat on, the time line is a misrepresentation.
          The draft did go forward once and it was quite different,
          and then it was rejected by ISIS WG and expired, and came
          back after area-proxy draft. It's not really the same. The
          draft is more like area-proxy. I don't know why it was
          changed in 2013 to get rid of the single node abstraction.
          Also agree with Chris, regarding lots of "+1" support, not
          sure how many read the draft. Speaking as WG member, the
          other two drafts (area-proxy and route reflectors) have much
          better specifications. I share the concern with the distributed
          algorithm, maybe you have done some experiments for the transition.
          But things don't happen all at once without handshaking across
          the whole routing domain in the zone. So I don't think the draft is
          as seamless as it claims, the quality is not as good as the
          other two drafts, even though it has higher goals.
Huaimo:   In 2013, the draft included two solutions. Abstract the
          zone to a single node, select Zone DR/leader which generates
          LSP for the zone. Second solution is to abstract the zone
          with edges fully connected.
Acee:     When it was resurrected in recent history in only included
          the full mesh of edges.
Huaimo:   Along the path, we focused on one solution. Now people are
          interested in abstracting as single node, we brought back
          something published in 2013.
Chris H:  it's individual draft, trying different things is fine. I
          echo Acee's comments. Ot doesn't feel finished. You
          mentioned you just have two adjs on the link at one time,
          although it doesn't specify how that works. For P2P, that
          wouldn't work. You have mechanisms with TLV to do the
          transition. We don't want to end up where you can do things
          10 different ways. We try for KISS solution, keep it
          simple silly. All these options are running up against that.
Huaimo:    The draft provides more options because we want to have
           discussions and we will converge to one option.
Chris H:   That's reasonable.
Huaimo:    For smooth transition, we did experimental
           implementation. If we don't have smooth transfer, when we
           abstract area to a single node, we will have adjcency flaps.
           If we don't have a solution, we have service
           interruptions.
Chris H:   Nobody is arguing that. What I see people arguing is that nobody
           really cares about a brief service interruption because it's not
           going to happen that often. Routers come up and down.

6 Flooding Topology Minimum Degree Algorithm
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flooding-topo-min-degree-00
Huaimo Chen

Skipped due to time limitation - now WG document.

7
Using IS-IS MT for SR based Virtual Transport Network
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt/
Chenhao Ma /Jie Dong

Tony Li:   have you considered using flex-algo? seems you can
           simplify things.
Jie:       we did. For flex-algo, we have a draft describing the
           routine.
Peter:     what's this draft standardizing? I see nothing.
Jie:       We had discussions on the list about how to use topology
           TE attributes to advertise information at policy level,
           which is not fully specified. whether this draft is
           standard or informational, we need the WG's feedback.
Peter:     I'm not sure you need to standardize.
Chris H:   so it is for informational.
Acee:      we'll discuss more after the base draft adopted in SPRING.

8 IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments/
Yao Liu

Acee:      You could use BGP to communicate, so don't need this.
Yao:       Yes, if there is BGP.
Chris H:   The IGP is special, we don't need extra info. The
           feedback is BGP-LS is designed to carry such info, not IGP.
Yao:       The main purpose is to provide info to BGP-LS.
Chris H:   You're using IGP as transport. We can continue on the
           list.

9 IS-IS Extensions to Support Packet Network Slicing using SR
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zch-lsr-isis-network-slicing-03
ISIS Extension to Support Network Slicing over IPv6 Dataplane
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-lsr-isis-network-slicing-srv6-00
IGP Flexible Algorithm with L2bundles
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-lsr-flex-algo-l2bundles-01

Ran Chen

10 Prefix Unreachable Announcement
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
Aijun Wang / Zhibo Hu

Acee:      Ff there are connections between ABRs, we don't need to
           mess up the protocol.
Praveen:   How different is this with already existing mechanism,
           like max-age? Is it specific to summary route?
Acee:      Yes.
Praveen:   There is no special relation between BGP and IGP.
Acee:      There are lots of solutions for this problem. the draft
           is half-baked. I don't think it's the right way.
Praveen:   In RIFT, we have default route issue.
           [aijun was having audio problems so couldn't reply]
Chris B:   Please don't use this time to trash other people's draft. The
           presenter is having  audio problems so no one is around to defend
           the work.
Chris H:   Yes, there was some support on the list for this work, so I was
           hoping that someone or another one of the other coauthors would
           join the queue. Since that is not happening, I suggest we continue
           this on the list.

The Chat History

Jeffrey Haas
Question for Sarah's presentation on reduction interval slide (slide 5?) - is
duration including the # of retransmits?

John Scudder
Kind of interesting that retransmissions drops as txinterval drops, until you
get txint down to 1

Jeffrey Haas
it does feel like they're hitting a rate limiter
I'd also be interested in the transmission cadence. insufficient gapping with
highly grouped bursts might lead to drops there as well

Tony Li
Yes, duration is wall clock from first LSP to last LSP.

Tony Przygienda
yeah, we have the stuff forever and we have no massive RTX'ssions
probably some implementation problem

Jeffrey Haas
Tony Li, that includes the retransmits?

Tony Przygienda
but there is tons good stuff here
I'll chime in

Tony Li
Yes, rexmit included.
Thank you, Tony!

Jeffrey Haas
Interesting. It suggests paying the retransmit tax is still worth it for the
reduced total time

Tony Li
No, hang on...

Tony Przygienda
hysteresis has to be very aggressive on back-off

Yingzhen Qu
I'm wondering whether data traffic has any impact?

Tony Przygienda
not if implemented correctly

Christian Hopps
Yingzhen, shouldn't

Jeffrey Haas
It's all queues. Depends on what's the resources being competed for.

Tony Li
These experiments were pure control plane.
No hardware was harmed. Or used.

Tony Przygienda
yeah, if you don't prioritise properly from input until protocol read out
you're toast no matter what

Jeffrey Haas
Tony Li - raw and not on traditional router with host plane ?
I guess better question is what's the platform? If raw linux, this discussion
is a bit off for actual routing hardware

Tony Li
Control plane in namespace containers, all on one server.

Jeffrey Haas
But does help develop the optimistic limits

ah. container underlay mechanisms can lead to weird behavior on bursty traffic

Tony Li
We did repeat on physical hardware, same results.

Jeffrey Haas
observations from tcp in bgp land in similar environemtn

John Scudder
Did I correctly understand the last line to be "too fast to meter"?

Tony Li
Tool failure.

John Scudder
ah

Henk Smit
So faster bursting of LSPs causes fewer retransmissions ? It seems the sender's
retransmission code is too aggressive ....

Tony Li
Faster PSNPs decreases retransmissions.
By default, retransmisssions are more aggressive than PSNP, which is just plain
broken.

Henk Smit
Sure. But I assume that if you have the receiver send PSNPs every 2 sec, you
have set the sender

Tony Przygienda
sigh, I say it on the mike, I assumed e'body knows that you obviously break the
spec and send PSNP (ACKS) as fast as you can mea culpa

Henk Smit
... sender's retransmit-interval to at least 3 sec.

Tony Li
"Everybody knows" is pointless. We're out to revise specs.
We need to write it down.

Tony Przygienda
correct, as I said, "mea culpa"
too many implementations over course of my life I guess until one doesn't
realise such stuff

Henk Smit
Tony, in the example by Sarah, when you set psnp-interval to 2 sec, what did
you set the rxmit-interval to ?

Tony Przygienda
no interval, I think what they suggest i.e. fast start with ramp up is best
solution I was frankly always greedy & ACK'ed as fast as I could

Henk Smit
Question was for Tony Li.

Tony Przygienda
oh, sorry
differentiate ;-)

Henk Smit
Sorry. :)

Tony Li
Left the rexmit alone.

Henk Smit
Old IOS code has that set to 5 sec. Can I assume your code still has it to 5
sec ?

Tony Li
Bad assumption. But that's not the point.
The point is that without fast PSNPs, delay seems like you need rexmit.

Tony Przygienda
and yes, what Jeff says about the bursts is very relevant but very HW specific
and very hard to put finger on. It's the usual trashing with too much context
change vs. state compression slowing convergence

Henk Smit
Just trying to understand why # of retransmits increases when you transmit
slower. It seems so counter-intuitive.

Tony Przygienda
and then once you start do that on tons interfaces lots of other stuff kicks on
in terms of buffer management nope, basically not enough PSNPs make it out to
confirm all the stuff that came in so the TXer starts to RTX because timers
kick in

Tony Li
Exactly.

Tony Przygienda
that's why the greedy PSNP basically works albeit the ramp up suggested here is
somewhat better since it protects receiver so this TX watching for retx/loss
and backing off and ramping up PNSP @ receiver is gold locks IMO no need for
any fast signalling, the protocol pacing basically drives max. hysteresis and
both the TXer and the RXer can clamp down the hysterisis

Tony Li
Our data doesn't support that. All it says is that faster PSNP is a requirement.

Henk Smit
Sure. Another rule-of-thumb would be: psnp-interval should be (much) lower than
rxmit-interval. I just wonder if that was the case here.

Tony Li
It wasn't. The point is that a PSNP of about 15 entries is near optimal.

Henk Smit
OK. Good to know that number. I'm just wondering why it is 15 ...

Tony Li
It's a balance between excessive overhead and acking before the transmitter
gets bored.

Tony Przygienda
this will be implementation dependent, link etc anyway ... if both sides adjust
they'll find the optimal point, that's the point of dynamic system hysterisis

Tony Li
It's not clear that we need sophisticated.
The data shows that performance is good as long as you don't wait to 90.

Tony Przygienda
well, you break the spec on PSNP side as you suggest (and I always did ;-) and
TX otherwise you won't speed up how sophisticated you want to make it is kind
of implementation technique IMO

Tony Li
The question is what do we write down.

Tony Przygienda
well, as usual it's dangerous to write implementation guidelines as Yakov
always warned ;-) I like hysteresis since that will amount for weird things
like losses due to link error, buffer overruns and so on but it's surely more
complex than saying "just send TX as fast you want and send PSNP _fast_" ;-)

Jeffrey Haas
These days I'm fond of "implementation considerations". If you don't have great
flow control, drop rate, and queue behaviors in reactions to bursty traffic are
things to watch for. If you had a nice mechanism to communicate the sustainable
xmit cadence, that'd help a ton

Tony Przygienda
back pressure signalling is always difficult/slow and surprising ;-) And we
don't have _fast signalling_ into link-state seems to me personally like an
overkill. but that's just me ;-) in rift doing weird stuff (well, HW did it for
me unintentionally) I found that putting SeqNr on packets & seeing losses of
eg. a PSNP packet and backing off very aggressively improves the RTX rate in
overlaod/problems. But we don't have that on ISIS formats so that's it

Jeffrey Haas
how fast you tune the too hot/too cold on your faucet is certainly a problem.
better to find a warm enough and leave it alone for a while

Tony Li
Thus 15.

Tony Przygienda
that's just hysteresis parameters and matter of taste, you want fast ramp-up,
fast slow-down and so on and 15 may be a great number or may not depending on
how fast the TX go/link and so on but it may be the simplest recommendation

Jeffrey Haas
for obvious reasons, I see this as akin to bfd session tuning

Tony Przygienda
same thing really

Tony Li
It's a control loop.

Tony Przygienda
yep ;-) wonderful if you can make 30 years career aspect of a single concept
you study in dynamic control theory 101 ;-)

Tony Li
Re: TTZ -- I'm still open to collaborating, but it MUST be in public and NOT on
a design team. Legal stuff.

Les Ginsberg
But is there a need to introduce "zone". Can't we do whatever is needed using
areas?

Tony Li
I think so, but...

Robert Raszuk
Well BGP is not a dump track ...
truck

John Scudder
aaaand this is why I'm not in the "virtual is the solution to everything" camp

Tony Li
Ayup

Christian Hopps
+1

Henk Smit
Solution for all these disconnect problems: someone should build a better
Internet .... :)

Aijun Wang
Can we discuss this on the maillist? there still exists noise.

John Scudder
Plus we're over time anyway.