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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

> The issue is that “path-id” and your concepts of paths
> is similar to many of the MPLS and segment routing path ids.

Well as it turns out from our discussion yesterday Gunter clarified that
the PATH_ID he used is just an reference to an indirection.

Hence as such it really has not much in common with what most folks
understand by PATH_ID.

Perhaps if he just renames it to something else (less confusing) his draft
will go forward quite smooth :)

Cheers,
R.




On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
> See my attached comparison from the interim.  You can also download
> Robin’s slides from the interim.
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Gunter Van De Velde
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:12 PM
> *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,
>
>
>
> 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 <[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]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 12:26 PM
> *To:* Lizhenbin; Susan Hares; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [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 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Lizhenbin <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday 26 October 2015 at 16:51
> *To: *Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[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] <[e-mail]>] *代表* Susan
> Hares
> *发送时间**:* 2015年10月25日 22:07
> *收件人**:* [e-mail]
> *抄送**:* [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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>
> <Hares-Discussion of Flowspec.pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>