Message-ID: <608c60ac-7669-86f0-b0ef-02add5287009@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:21:24 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net: mpls: Allow users to configure more
 labels per route

On 3/27/17 4:39 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> On 25/03/17 19:15, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bump the maximum number of labels for MPLS routes from 2 to 12. To keep
>>> memory consumption in check the labels array is moved to the end of
>>> mpls_nh
>>> and mpls_iptunnel_encap structs as a 0-sized array. Allocations use the
>>> maximum number of labels across all nexthops in a route for LSR and the
>>> number of labels configured for LWT.
>>>
>>> The mpls_route layout is changed to:
>>>
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | mpls_route           |
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | mpls_nh 0            |
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | alignment padding    |   4 bytes for odd number of labels; 0 for
>>> even
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | via[rt_max_alen] 0   |
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | alignment padding    |   via's aligned on sizeof(unsigned long)
>>>    +----------------------+
>>>    | ...                  |
>>>
>>> Meaning the via follows its mpls_nh providing better locality as the
>>> number of labels increases. UDP_RR tests with namespaces shows no impact
>>> to a modest performance increase with this layout for 1 or 2 labels and
>>> 1 or 2 nexthops.
>>>
>>> The new limit is set to 12 to cover all currently known segment
>>> routing use cases.
>>
>> How does this compare with running the packet a couple of times through
>> the mpls table to get all of the desired labels applied?
> 
> At the moment (i.e setting output interface for a route to the loopback
> interface) the TTL would currently be calculated incorrectly since it'll
> be decremented each time the packet is run through the input processing.
> If that was avoided, then the only issue would be the lower performance.

We have the infrastructure to add all the labels on one pass. It does
not make sense to recirculate the packet to get the same effect.


> 
>>
>> I can certainly see the case in an mpls tunnel ingress where this might
>> could be desirable.    Which is something you implement in your last
>> patch.  However is it at all common to push lots of labels at once
>> during routing?
>>
>> I am probably a bit naive but it seems absurd to push more
>> than a handful of labels onto a packet as you are routing it.
> 
> From draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-07:
> 
>    Note that the kind of deployment of Segment Routing may affect the
>    depth of the MPLS label stack.  As every segment in the list is
>    represented by an additional MPLS label, the length of the segment
>    list directly correlates to the depth of the label stack.
>    Implementing a long path with many explicit hops as a segment list
>    may thus yield a deep label stack that would need to be pushed at the
>    head of the SR tunnel.
> 
>    However, many use cases would need very few segments in the list.
>    This is especially true when taking good advantage of the ECMP aware
>    routing within each segment.  In fact most use cases need just one
>    additional segment and thus lead to a similar label stack depth as
>    e.g.  RSVP-based routing.
> 
> The summary is that when using short-path routing then the number of
> labels needed to be pushed on will be small (2 or 3). However, if using
> SR to implement traffic engineering through a list of explicit hops then
> the number of labels pushed could be much greater and up to the diameter
> of the IGP network. Traffic engineering like this is not unusual.

And the thread on the FRR mailing list has other ietf references. The
summary is that are plenty of use cases for more labels on ingress
(ip->mpls) and route paths (mpls->mpls). I did see one comment that 12
may not be enough for all use cases. Why not 16 or 20?

This patch set bumps the number of labels and the performance impact is
only to users that use a high label count. Other than a temporary stack
variable for installing the routes, no memory is allocated based on the
limit as an array size, so we could just as easily go with 16 - a nice
round number.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists