Re: [Idr] Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect//答复: IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Gunter: 

 

My apologies – since the slide I referenced was the chair’s discussion generating slide – I did not put <IDR chair hat on> - I should have. 

 

<chair hat on> 

My chair’s discussion was to inspire conversation on you perception of the path-id versus the draft-li-mpls-path-programming. 

 

I was looking to solicit the following comment from you.  

 

“You clearly understand that draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect and draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming are orthogonal to each other, not?” 

 

My job as chair is to get people talking about their view of the other proposal. 

<chair hat off> 

 

The issue is that “path-id” and your concepts of paths is similar to many of the MPLS and segment routing path ids.   Draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming seeks to generalize segment routing (see Robin’s slides) using a variety of BGP and MPLS.    

 

As Lucy’s slides pointed out – we have an IP and non-IP traffic.  My understanding is that your path-id is for just IP traffic.  You comment below would suggest both. 

 

Best wishes, 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:38 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect//答复: IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

 

Hi Sue,

 

[Please indicate when you are speaking as IDR chair or when you are speaking as contributor/affiliation… i am confused]

 

I did a search for forwarding ID in the referenced document and i do not see it?

 

You clearly understand that draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect and draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming are orthogonal to each other, not?

“draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming " specifies how BGP uses attributes to signal a tunnel and how a tunnel is constructed through the network, while on the other end of the 

spectrum draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect specifies flowspec based traffic steering onto a redirect path and signals no tunnel attributes at all.

 

In draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect the local PATH_ID table can be constructed by many means and is outside the scope of the document:

 

* draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming

* manual config

* netconf/yang

* traditional routing

* voodoo 

* etc...

 

The end result: redirect-to-path and draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming are orthogonal to each other.

 

Kind Regards,

G/

 

 

On 28 Oct 2015, at 00:30, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Gunter: 

 

Robin’s proposal is  <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming/

 

See my attached comparison from the interim.  You can also download Robin’s slides from the interim.   

 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg;  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect//答复: IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

 

Hi Sue,

 

Would you know where to find Forwarding ID described in draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel to make assessment? 

There is no mentioning of this concept at all in the document? Alternatively, what i found is signalling of tunnel end-point (IPv4/IPv6) and 

some tunnel setup information (tunnel encap attribute and a new MPP TE tunnel attribute).

 

Brgds,

G/

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 27 Oct 2015, at 19:28, Susan Hares < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:

 

Gunter: 

 

Can you let me know the difference between the Path ID in your proposal and Robin’s Forwarding ID that is a generalized segment ID? 

 

Sue Hares

 

From: VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter) [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:26 PM
To: Lizhenbin; Susan Hares;  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Cc:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect//答复: IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

 

Hi Robin,

 

Thanks for your note.

 

A tunnel is not always going over shortest path. Some tunnels are TE tunnels and are deliberately not going over a shortest path. This is something that draft-rosen-idr-tunnel-encaps-00 will not help to signal because the tunnel-encap attribute indicates tunnel parameters used by the tail-end.

 

If a redirect tunnel represents a particular redirect/steering service (better delay, less packet loss, non-SRLG, more BW, etc…) then it does become rather complex for BGP as signalling technology because a tunnel relationship is a unique between 'a headend' and ‘a tailed' device. It seems better to leave tunnel-setup to dedicated tunnel-setup mechanisms like PCEP, SR, etc….

 

The draft redirect-to-PATH_ID is providing the means to signal a flow-based redirect/steering service, and have each recipient router identify using local recursion for the PATH_IDs the corresponding tunnels/redirect-info. This allows for tunnel setup complexity to be taken away from BGP, while at the same time BGP is doing what it is very good at doing: "It signals a policy” in reliable fashion.

 

Kind Regards,

G/

 

 

 

From:  Idr < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> on behalf of Lizhenbin < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Date: Monday 26 October 2015 at 16:51
To: Susan Hares < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>, " <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]" < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Cc: " <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]" < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect//答复: IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

 

Hi Gunter,

Regarding your presentation, I have following comments:

Do you mean draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel is to signal tunnel setup info? draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel is to steer traffic to the tunnel instead of signal tunnel setup. 

I am not sure if the reuse of draft-rosen-idr-tunnel-encaps-00 in the draft make you confused? We just hope to  just reuses the attributes of to specify the tunnel type to help steering 

the traffic to tunnel. If this is not a good way, maybe we can define new attributes.

 

 

Best Regards,

Robin

 

 

 

 

 

发件人: Idr [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2015年10月25日 22:07
收件人:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
抄送:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
主题: [Idr] IDR interim (10/26/2015) 10:00am - 11:30am ET update

 

IDR WG members: 

 

Below is an updated agenda for the IDR interim on 10/26/2015.

 

Sue 

 

------------

IDR interim October 26, 2015 

10:00 - 11:30am 

 

1. Chair's slides [10:00-10:05]

 

1. draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-01.txt

   speaker: Stephane Litowski  

   Time: 10:05-10:15

    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset/

   

2. draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel-00

   Speaker: Weiguo Hao

   Time: 10:15 - 10:25 

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel/

   

   

3. draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect

   Speaker: Gunter Van De Velde

   Time: 10:25- 10:35

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/

   

   

4. Draft Name: draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nvo3-02 

   Speaker: Weiguo Hao

   Duration: 10:35-10:40 

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nvo3/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nvo3/

   

 

5. draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-01.txt.

   Speaker: 

   Duration: 10:40-10:45 

   <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label/

   

6. draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time

   presenter: Jianjie You

   time: 10:45-10:55

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time/

 

7. Draft Name: draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-02

   Speaker: Zhenbin Li

   Duration: 10:55-11:05 

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming/

 

7. Draft Name: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-01

   Speaker: Shunwan Zhuang

   Duration: 11:05 - 11:15 

    <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd/

   

8.  Discussion of Flowspec drafts

    11:15 - 11:30am 

 

 Meeting Web-ex information 

 Monday, October 26, 2015 

10:00 am  |  Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00)  |  2 hrs 

 

webex infor: 

 <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mae6cf241d3adf214033e599c3ff3143f> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mae6cf241d3adf214033e599c3ff3143f

 

Meeting number:            644 964 970 

Meeting password:         flow.in.nets

 

 

Join by phone

1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)

1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

Access code: 644 964 970

 

 

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

 

<Hares-Discussion of Flowspec.pdf>