RNTWG Packet Marking WG Meeting

Name: RNTWG Packet Marking WG Meeting
Start: 2022-06-07T18:00:00+02:00
End: 2022-06-07T19:00:00+02:00
Location: No location set

Tuesday 7 Jun 2022, 18:00 → 19:00 Europe/Zurich

Marian Babik (CERN), Shawn Mc Kee (University of Michigan (US))

Description

Packet marking working group meeting to review status and plans.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://umich.zoom.us/j/91343209239?pwd=T1o0WXBSbE1wMk5DNU5aQUZUVURrUT09

Meeting ID: 913 4320 9239
Passcode: 382133

Links:

Packet Marking WG

SciTags https://www.scitags.org/

Live meeting notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kWoc9Smi3nB6cajuomt-kYmNUgoyRE1C1_REkEdCPQo/edit?usp=sharing

- Packet Marking Meeting: Packet Marking WG
  
  Conveners: Marian Babik (CERN), Shawn Mc Kee (University of Michigan (US))
  - 1
    
    News
    
    Speakers: Marian Babik (CERN), Shawn Mc Kee (University of Michigan (US))
  - 2
    Packet Marking
    
    a) dCache Meeting Summary
    
    Speakers: Marian Babik (CERN), Shawn Mc Kee (University of Michigan (US))
    
    Discussed different options for flow and packet marking implementation in dCache. Agreed that easiest would be to establish interface to flowd and let it handle both flow and packet marking.
    
    dCache will need to implement a way how to detect start of the transfer as this is currently missing (end of transfers and bytes transferred is already done, src/dst ports can also be extracted). Flowd will need to implement a local interface and a communication protocol (flow marking is already done; Tristan is looking into packet marking). We have also agreed to align the developments with the WLCG monitoring task force which is also interested in this data.
    
    We discussed proposal for HTTP-TPC protocol extension in the current technical specification. Following up on this few minor changes were made in the tech. spec.
    
    b) eBPF-TC Updates
    
    Speaker: Tristan Sullivan (University of Victoria)
    
    c) RFC Updates
    
    Speakers: Marian Babik (CERN), Tim Chown
    
    There’s three 6man WG drafts that are relevant, but in practice with not much impact on our WG.
    
    The Alt Marking draft is still in the RFC Editor queue.
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark/
    Described passive performance monitoring method. Proposes AltMark Option, which is encoded in the EHs (HbH and/or Destination). Provides very good discussion on the IPv6 flow label trade-offs.
    There is also a draft on the SRv6 AltMark (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark/)
    
    The newly adopted 6man WG draft on processing EHs is interesting:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits/
    It would only affect us if we used EHs and the WLCG packets had a lot of other EHs.
    
    Likewise there is now a 6man WG draft on Hop by Hop option processing:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing/
    In principle this draft might mean fewer packets with HbH options get dropped.
    
    d) XRootD Flow Label Implementation
    
    Speaker: Andrew Hanushevsky (STANFORD LINEAR ACCELERATOR CENTER)
    
    XRootD-Packet-Marking.pdf
    
    XRootD-Packet-Marking.pptx
  - 3
    Plans and next steps
    
    a) TBA

Choose timezone

RNTWG Packet Marking WG Meeting