Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy

Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.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 952411200F7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: syntax error)" header.d=ipinfusion.com
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 YGoRIHdSz2_M for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe33.google.com (mail-vs1-xe33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85F21200D6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe33.google.com with SMTP id m8so7348938vsj.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipinfusion.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i0Kb/hvQ97jkntc/Y8kThrIRHC0au394dtD1bmRud/U=; b=eIFK+OVa4NM7Q+jGz5LNIKZvpcaeCxr0FntQuFzGPCILTC4UM5T2zHrssv2t5aSeK3 qE22TNmlyEzTbzV1h6694kA2J9K+dmpr2DSxmDKJpWk/DSkrPJq9MARXEmqp20ruFZzl qwWymSBwfTJ/vowAb5tX8bNtSD+c12t3bMSX6jg/0imdnPuePOGVTgtLejxm/+lEE0dX 2bdRmpypQ8xXmosVvNoK3pwZ6uhQKqoOubugX+mM0t4lzL0KiLmUJ61TYPyLiOPCbzNw 2j4adOQm1Fr9lMBoZDkSMUYGRnCn6w2LPGZDPR2QXjGGRzKs5xbhzMO1A9QhghbPQPYR 1Hcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i0Kb/hvQ97jkntc/Y8kThrIRHC0au394dtD1bmRud/U=; b=M4jaDPa/KZokoBbwNni0GKwSk70jB0wpdylbUouRqnZEQuPMT4noeUSdVrW4pWOLWL tMg6u3SLpLLmDXWyphMN/scrp0c/nkixGjKogTMLREEltAXR8dd8OzvMqeEcGWX2Ni26 ZMm+2qtlvXKC0iWI4/4y0EMs9jakTGt2QIm6TyRGSkJaQdocr3WTYUdUCiYUnPfgFaDr zhGNFZGyKXIxf9rSbvhazOUfIKU+sieQWDb/0uHlNQxpf9jMJcAAQWd0oGz5oC61ztt1 7Or3/8HJtPUhiAPRcyBf5ogwSYVsA/0g3nSIMWWLoQGK0kHriSY+OqHzRYfcjfEr+2Fq jDbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWfPcCYFHFMa19zzFOwE4IgFXHiKNduE37RaCDNnjUO0vw9jvfe 54aTLuqzCqFVn7aO3EDfYrvgKFdS8O58gnqXVeBi10Et0C6ee4X1XtKrh9OxttKEbuidedv8mZG m4UWerBs7knP7CfSsKgozXEwiLJw7p9jpQF0ThHJuJBnNWBBWa0b8aecsywyX+l0C2t4MGz7GB7 zpE5sqUzk9zGxZvoM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwm+rQWSENabn+ZeSXzoJH7Jgn5Eu8faYa5UNHtTnPc4/9YDF9Sfo5bggi4jqxTz90zuFVsOCtEtnach4Or7YM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:114:: with SMTP id z20mr8630539vsq.187.1562560771578; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <993db9e45983acc9769af61bf786a6d6@mail.gmail.com> <SN6PR11MB284516BC1430BFFA5E494C0EC13B0@SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAHhGMfGRgdDTam97sb5dYZQHBLLHpTj85yJ7oL5w7wrB3+q3jA@mail.gmail.com> <SN6PR11MB28451163BCFFD7E2A2DFBFA9C1320@SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAHhGMfF3XvN4UhedzGSMSA_Qg9JHRp55Vw9enAzsmAh0BBmZ-Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR11MB2027233E97E8949D36D48222C1FB0@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR11MB2027233E97E8949D36D48222C1FB0@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:09:19 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHhGMfGF0kC27GZT4KXMJ835NEyT0kJ8FNCm663h5hW8Mga6Dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: Chaitanya Varma <chaitanya.varma@ipinfusion.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Ramanathan Selvamani <ramanathan.selvamani@ipinfusion.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bafcf3058d2407b3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9qCFjKGoNd9v-Gw_F7N6K2Gqisk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
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, 08 Jul 2019 04:39:35 -0000

Hi Ketan,

Thanks for the response.
Additionally, we have more queries as follows:


The draft says that
"One or more IPv4 address format route-target extended community

      ([RFC4360 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4360>]) attached to
the SR Policy advertisement and that

      indicates the intended head-end of such SR Policy advertisement."

Here one or more RTs are attached to match specific headend?

" If one or more route-targets are present, then at least one route  target
MUST match one of the BGP Identifiers of the receiver in order  for the
update to be considered usable."
Can a BGP peer have more than one BGP identifier?


On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:29 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gurusiddesh,
>
>
>
> The purpose of the RT is to indicate the specific headend for which the SR
> Policy is for. So I am not sure of the scenario where multiple RTs will be
> associated with a single update.
>
>
>
> Even if it were, I am not sure we normally strip out RTs automatically
> without some specific route policy being applied.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 12:56
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Chaitanya Varma <chaitanya.varma@ipinfusion.com>om>; idr@ietf.org;
> Ramanathan Selvamani <ramanathan.selvamani@ipinfusion.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Mail regarding
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> We have some more doubts as follows:
>
>
>
> "Typically, a controller defines the set of policies and advertise
>
>    them to policy head-end routers (typically ingress routers).  The
>
>    policy advertisement uses BGP extensions defined in this document.
>
>    The policy advertisement is, in most but not all of the cases,
>
>    tailored for a specific policy head-end.  In this case the
>
>    advertisement may sent on a BGP session to that head-end and not
>
>    propagated any further."
>
>
>
> If controller sends multiple unique RTs in the same Update message,
>
> 1. Once the SR policy reaches the Headend, should we strip down that
> particular RT to avoid advertising it further?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Gurusiddesh V N
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:58 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Gurusiddesh,
>
>
>
> Please check inline below
>
>
>
> *From:* Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
> *Sent:* 07 May 2019 17:11
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Chaitanya Varma <chaitanya.varma@ipinfusion.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Mail regarding
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> Additionally, we have more queries as follows
>
>
>
> *"Alternatively, a router (i.e., a BGP egress router) advertises SR*
>
> *   Policies representing paths to itself.  In this case, it is possible*
>
> *   to send the policy to each head-end over a BGP session to that head-*
>
> *  end, without requiring any further propagation of the policy."*
>
>
>
> How does an egress router advertise SR policies representing paths to
> itself?
>
> *[KT] By setting endpoint to it’s own router-id in the NLRI and setting
> the ingress router’s router-id in the router-target extended community.*
>
> Is it done through BGP configuration or any other trigger?
>
> *[KT] This would be implementation specific based on the
> use-case/workflow.*
>
>
> In the above case how ERO (SID-List) is calculated?
>
> *[KT] This is again implementation specific. It could be done by some TE
> module on the egress BGP router that has topology visibility from the
> ingress router to itself. It would be kind of reverse of how a headend
> computes a path from itself to an endpoint – this is the endpoint computing
> path to itself from some headend.*
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Ketan*
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gurusiddesh V N
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chaitanya,
>
>
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Chaitanya Varma
> *Sent:* 30 April 2019 13:34
> *To:* idr@ietf.org
> *Cc:* Gurusiddesh Nidasesi <gurusiddesh.nidasesi@ipinfusion.com>
> *Subject:* [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have couple of queries from the below draft.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05
>
>
>
> *  “ Typically, a controller defines the set of policies and advertise*
>
> *   them to policy head-end routers (typically ingress routers).” *
>
>
>
> How do we communicate SR policies from controller? Is it through BGP-SR
> session or PCEP session.
>
> *[KT] This draft is all about using BGP for signalling SR Policies from a
> controller to the head-end routers. So yes (b) below.*
>
>
>
> a. If it is through PCEP session what happens if the PCC is non-headend?
>
> b. If it is through BGP-SR what is the role for PCEP between PCE and PCC?
>
> *[KT] PCEP is another flavour for instantiation of SR Policies. Yet
> another option is using netconf/yang or another method for provisioning.
> This draft is about using BGP and PCEP is not required.*
>
>
>
> *  “ Moreover, one or more route-target SHOULD be attached to the*
>
>
>
> *   advertisement” *How Route-target should be attached to a SR-NLRI
> update?
>
> *[KT] As Route Target Extended Communities attribute – ref sec 1 of the
> draft.*
>
>
>
> Is it done through local configuration or picked up based on some dynamic
> parameter?
>
> *[KT] It is done by the controller and may be done via local config –
> either along with the SR Policy or route policy or even dynamically based
> on the head-end address. This would be implementation specific.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Ketan*
>
>
>
> Appreciate if you can help here.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chaitanya
>
>
>
>
> ..
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gurusiddesh V N
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gurusiddesh V N
>
>
> .
>


-- 
Thanks,
Gurusiddesh V N

-- 
.