[Nsi-wg] UvA/TUD topology exchange proposal

Thu Sep 18 17:23:12 EDT 2014

I do agree with the comment on funky policies, and and of course the uPA is always the final authority on what can and cannot be done.  I do however, believe we should deb able to communicate some common high-level policies so the pathfinders can more quickly converge on a viable path.  We need to consider simple ones like network transit policies and any SDP restrictions.  This would allow the path finder to prune the easy ones before its first attempt, allowing convergence on a viable path more quickly.

My goal is to be successful first try in most of the cases, and have to retry for some of the more funky ones.  So if ESnet only allows reservations on their network to source or terminate in their customer's networks then I should know this before starting pathfinding so I don't use them as a transit path.  Other types of polices such as end-site STP policies (UNI-N) really don't matter to path finding.  Whether I tell the user it is not possible, or the uPA does, they will know in the end and I could not have avoided the issue.

John

On 2014-09-18, at 3:54 PM, Jerry Sobieski <jerry at nordu.net> wrote:

> Ah John - what a lovely complement.  :-)
> 
> But you are right.   This is the hard part of path selection - knowing all the details about all the choices before making a decision which to use.
> 
> First, most networks don't want to advertise all their policies.  Second, these are only some of the information that may prevent a reservation being confirmed - scheduling could be another. Do you advertise the entire available schedule within your topology as well?  THis becomes a very NP hard problem.  
> 
> So if you can't advertise all the relevant information, then how do you deal with it?   I say - Try it.  See if it works.   There was no guarantee that it would work even if you knew the policy, so you would still have to try the reservation - and risk being rejected and having to crank back and try another path.   
> 
> There is no escaping this.
> 
> So I suggest you don't worry about it - we simplify the advertisements as much as possible, and make a "good" guess rather than trying to solve an optimization problem.    If Henrik has funky policy, let him process the request and decide...why should all other pathfinders have to be able to interpret his complex policies?  
> 
> The otehr question is- How do you prune the search space?   You may find that policy is not the best way to prune the search space and that other criteria rule out most paths anyway.   In which case there are only a few viable paths remaining there is no need to fret over whether you have a valid credential that the remote network will honor... just try it.  Try it 50 times if you need to.   
> 
> Thats life in topology processing.   So what is the moral?   Keep your advertised topology as simple as possible, and let local agents deal with local problems.   If you are a directly peering neighbor, you should already know which credentials will allow a reservation through, and if you are a remote NSA, well... no gurantees.. its a hail mary.
> 
> See you all in Uppsala
> Jerry
> :-)
> 
> 
> On 9/18/14, 3:28 PM, John MacAuley wrote:
>> In times like these I always ask myself "What would Jerry say?"  This has helped me quite a bit since he stopped participating in the daily activities of the NSI-WG.  Every time I get too deep into the network technology, I can hear Jerry's voice telling me it is too much detail for what we are trying to achieve in NSI.  I take a step back, and try to remove myself from the nitty gritty details of the specific networking technology.  Something to think about…
>> 
>> I think we need to very careful to keep a separation of concerns.  NML is used to describe the NSI service constructs of STP, SDP, Service Domains, and Adaptations.  Policy is something that gets applied to these constructs in some way (yet to be defined) to constrain their function.  Annotating NML with policy may be a possibility.  There are also others.  I definitely think we will need to add additional attributes to the NML objects to help better identify them for the enforcement of policy (depending on the types we define).
>> 
>> I have been thinking about the policy topic quite a bit, and I think we have policy in a number of places:
>> 
>> 1. Within networks as described by Henrik.
>> 2. Within services definitions - policies on the defined services we offer.
>> 3. Within user requests - we talk about path constraints but these are user specified policy to guide the reservation request (and part of the service definitions).
>> 
>> The good thing is if a policy can be enforced it can be described.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> On 2014-09-18, at 9:48 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi again (sorry for the slow response time)
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Ralph Koning wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Henrik,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your comments; it seems that some things are left unclear and
>>>> let me elaborate on this. Naturally, we will improve the text in the
>>>> next document version. As both Miroslav and me will be present at the
>>>> Nordunet conference we can further elaborate and clarify the model.
>>>> 
>>>> #0  The document is a proposal for a topology exchange
>>>>   - It is not a requirements document (upcoming/promised by Chin/John)
>>>>   - It is not a comparison of routing techniques
>>>> 
>>>> #1  Topology exchange != routing
>>>>   We distinguish between 'topology exchange' and 'path calculation'.
>>> You cannot separate these. The requirements inherently affect what information is published/exhanges between networks/NSA. Similarly the routing algorithm affects how the information gets passed around.
>>> 
>>> The basic shortcoming of the system is that it is based around a single representation of each network (the NML way of thinking). However this is practially never the case.
>>> 
>>> You can try and encode switching capabilities into each network description and do pathfinding (the current approach for some in the NSI group), but this falls to the ground when there are restrictive policies about re-transit (i.e., I am allowed to transit a service into another network, but the entity I am selling to is not allowed to re-transit).
>>> 
>>> I wish more people would look at BGP. There is a notion in the group, that BGP is somehow bad or restrictive. However, the reason BGP is successfull it because it allows representing the underlying policy of the network AND being able to change up/downstream.  This is completely impossible with the single description-per-network idea of NML (which mainly seems to come out of multi-layer pathfinding research, and if you are just interesting in hardware capabilities that approach is fine). It is not BGP that creates the policy, it just exposes it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    Best regards, Henrik
>>> 
>>> Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
>>> Software Developer, NORDUnet
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nsi-wg mailing list
>>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsi-wg mailing list
>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20140918/400311f3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1626 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20140918/400311f3/attachment-0001.bin>