Re: [Idr] [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ju1738@att.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818B8130FE8; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:08:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xaLau0avlwe; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4841277BB; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x07I6v1l004806; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:08:11 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2pvasxt4y5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Jan 2019 13:08:11 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x07I8AlW027406; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:08:11 -0500
Received: from zlp27125.vci.att.com (zlp27125.vci.att.com [135.66.87.52]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x07I86XA027308; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:08:06 -0500
Received: from zlp27125.vci.att.com (zlp27125.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27125.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 59F2E16A3EE; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:08:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.151]) by zlp27125.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 46C7C16A3EB; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:08:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.198]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:08:05 -0500
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>
CC: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing
Thread-Index: AQHUmUmKLQ3wohQ48E28zwp2F07UtqWeew+AgAAQwACAAV/7gIAESCtA
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:08:05 +0000
Message-ID: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4D7E7B2B@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CAMMESsz8Z_B1aH-4wYL-V9cV=5Xse+tpKqXFish6+V+td7KKzw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERmic4UXsuWW08SKOH_hwhC5pA+o-J1pHOoT8n2LGJHUng@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESszxvEFTdsdCS6yEM=Yi6iy=gnrOqWbD07wFTedY90hLkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHd-QWu8RjwnwJ8LXWpjTmY=VHA4PwZt=uP+H5M4AnKQVBeG7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxQhNtW4GEvucv6A2Sh2=_sxm9wigRax+9Gj3C7caBV5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHd-QWskekEA1HrJbAGnwPrv8b2+jy12qg9iazmn4kXDgsN15Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESswt1VxG547oTu7CdrLd8c0kBGyF=FKCXV7z_4rhp8RfYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswt1VxG547oTu7CdrLd8c0kBGyF=FKCXV7z_4rhp8RfYw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.91.76.93]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4D7E7B2BMISOUT7MSGUSRCD_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-07_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901070155
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/94Ko_I9qYKDpDhVXwL38AfeCt40>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 18:08:16 -0000

A requirements doc would be a place to describe the behavior of the “system”.

Jim Uttaro

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:40 PM
To: Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>
Cc: idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>rg>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On January 3, 2019 at 5:40:23 PM, Rob Shakir (robjs@google.com<mailto:robjs@google.com>) wrote:

Describing these compromises is, of course, a good idea. However, it's not clear where this description would go -- we don't really have a document that describes this overall system and how it might be implemented today<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__airmail.calendar_2019-2D01-2D04-252012-3A00-3A00-2520EST&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=YPkMlAzgEmV6UHI4lGHe5dQ-N93JfeFuHAnSN6GcHlA&s=rOkYxM7fv1EaibU0ZmaZmT9J4zGKG81KNpHItRnP5II&e=>4zGKG81KNpHItRnP5II&e=>.

Right…

I started reviewing the documents with BGP-LS extensions for SR…starting with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext, which is the first BGP-LS extensions document to be sent for Publication where the application is explicitly to "construct the end-to-end path (with its associated SIDs) that need to be applied to an incoming packet to achieve the desired end-to-end forwarding”.  All other BGP-LS extension documents have in general followed the “informative” tone of rfc7752.

I don’t necessarily think that the description of the system belongs there…but there’s no other place to put it, at least not currently.  The SR Problem Statement (rfc7855) and the SR Architecture (rfc8402) both just make general statements about the need to support centralized and hybrid (and distributed, of course) control planes — they don’t go into more specifics…

…

Alvaro.