Re: [Idr] [spring] draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 - EXP NULL imposition

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.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 9B690120086; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 05:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=W1DxFMw3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=lEfe+juQ
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 Cy6O0nkSewBw; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 05:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CFA712022D; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 05:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22510; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562158416; x=1563368016; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FpeNFadAtFK5w7nOcXfJQyx1I6XU782hJKN66mB7Arw=; b=W1DxFMw34OzRBHlx6PVQKlkUkOhccncTyKdCJGMFJpk6i+BhKoIjhBhj JF1Wh1ZKGBKMcSB6sgiUrdBUivGPN911UV/K9qbGfKqJRi8ozmKBdiFlI ZnKC57FkW98p9FsfebgjfELBA7Yu4DBZfuwNquPyTHY2jL2EULgvSIvL6 g=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AdnCuwB+Bti4dYf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+/bR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVc2IFUT9MNbhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAADVpBxd/5tdJa1mGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBFC8kLANqVSAECyiEHINHA4RSiXOCW5JyhFS?= =?us-ascii?q?BLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCCyM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVKAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBBIRBAYTAQE3AQ8CAQgRAQMBASgDAgICMBQDBggCBAENBQgagwGBHU0DHQG?= =?us-ascii?q?ZZAKBOIhgcX8zgnkBAQWFDxiBeBoJgTQBi14XgUA/gRFGgkw+hEY0glQygia?= =?us-ascii?q?MFIJUhHwjiDqNfgkCghaOBoYUgiuHHIxagVCEEYkflzMCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVA?= =?us-ascii?q?4N4EhcBU7gmyCQQwXg06KU3KBKY0CAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,446,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="367683127"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Jul 2019 12:53:35 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x63CrZuT031310 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:53:35 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:53:34 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:53:34 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:53:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FpeNFadAtFK5w7nOcXfJQyx1I6XU782hJKN66mB7Arw=; b=lEfe+juQG7ruginklCbj1tuJgR8C+Os7zEpzdctp//siZaN3hy9evpv1P+XzZutBFGymgYyGymOalizJ1ifW27kTomgGFmsM1E5fXx/VLVGX8pHMbSU3/uFnWrhbmH+PDo7Yd0aprwyKFTVXQ+yblJTnI+vohGKxzn8dOxwZ77o=
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.168.103.22) by DM5PR11MB1644.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.38.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.20; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:53:32 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3cb3:24e6:1ba8:bba5]) by DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3cb3:24e6:1ba8:bba5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:53:32 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: Przemyslaw Krol <pkrol=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 - EXP NULL imposition
Thread-Index: AQHU5rsjBKo6NC8xTkKAyEAzGztiY6a5aFCg
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:53:32 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR11MB2027033414DE635AA4C6B376C1FB0@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACH2EkWg=v-wcW4cHfUbV5aPnvOQBWEaf-wQQFy2JVPOHDYw1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACH2EkWg=v-wcW4cHfUbV5aPnvOQBWEaf-wQQFy2JVPOHDYw1w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0e0:1008::ba]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9c863ec4-88e0-4a6c-4fb0-08d6ffb5748d
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR11MB1644;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1644:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB1644F68650E1DBF23D8151C6C1FB0@DM5PR11MB1644.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00872B689F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(229853002)(186003)(2906002)(71190400001)(7696005)(66476007)(8676002)(102836004)(66556008)(236005)(54906003)(256004)(66946007)(6506007)(52536014)(71200400001)(81156014)(790700001)(6116002)(53936002)(74316002)(76116006)(11346002)(46003)(4326008)(2501003)(81166006)(7736002)(446003)(6436002)(476003)(73956011)(64756008)(66446008)(68736007)(33656002)(86362001)(5660300002)(6246003)(9686003)(25786009)(76176011)(54896002)(478600001)(6306002)(8936002)(110136005)(99286004)(316002)(14454004)(53546011)(55016002)(486006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1644; H:DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: K1okdEYDHRg7xe2ZuYjX8q1LTrDQa3GdnfPnxUVWum5im6EWOQQ4esGa5y32pIm0gcGOy+oVPQv9C155BbkQLmDn14o2jQmkdGiZNac+m1FloNySp5g+RciU2VjHnDHORyli6nDIyPjiVdk9yHaDEFPAyfOl62VFvZGbBlR7yAnmy6LcZG8xU97T6sqFaOYEdRb/8LMwPRXRhizW0LXVW1v5dkNtuC6CpnLxQ2UqLdAMsDDrRl2Fsmt8FtnvAD07n0SjG54qJrWpgDDelL58UseXTZMOzMg2v5/MYliKx1wTa/p9YZv3x6VfGKIs9h5VO7oSIu/l0xyH2wh6XNc9dvtsjNM2oF8acBaXybnqgqax+MTBTRVJFSAlk52tSvK1cY2D4yadlkcrtTk9MaQpcBGZuMiqR9R0KCgd13jiNe4=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR11MB2027033414DE635AA4C6B376C1FB0DM5PR11MB2027namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9c863ec4-88e0-4a6c-4fb0-08d6ffb5748d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jul 2019 12:53:32.7794 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ketant@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1644
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.21, xch-aln-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MN4ozfN8qGDiGWPQmRQqTcGdHfw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 - EXP NULL imposition
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:53:47 -0000

Hi PK,

Please check inline below.

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Przemyslaw Krol
Sent: 30 March 2019 11:09
To: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 - EXP NULL imposition

Greetings,

I have two minor comments regarding section 2..4.4

2.4.4.  Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV



 The policy signaled in this Sub-TLV MAY be overridden by local

      policy.



[pk] Wouldn't something like 'The behavior signaled in this Sub-TLV MAY be overridden by local configuration/implementation/etc' be better?

In this daft's context policy has a defined meaning and 'signalling a policy' or 'local policy' may be confusing.

[KT] I agree. I would suggest “The behaviour signalled in this sub-TLV MAY be overridden by local configuration.”



Also, do you find useful listing such local behaviors or is it too implementation specific? The reason I'm asking is because I've seen 3 ways of handling automatic EXP NULL push (either available already or in development/discussion):

[KT] IMHO it is implementation specific  – but I will let the authors of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy decide if they want to put some non-normative text in that document. Also such text (even if we were to add it) does not seem suitable for this BGP document since it is possible that down the line we introduce something similar to ENLP in PCEP and the actual instantiation of the SR Policy is subject matter of the SR Policy Architecture draft.



- based on Endpoint's AF (if packet's AF doesn't match Endpoint's AF -> PUSH EXP NULL)

[KT] This sounds good since the controller is indicating based on it’s selection of the endpoint. Alternately, the controller itself could include the exp-null as part of the SID list.



- based on the AF of SIDs/labels in the Segment List (if packet's AF doesn't match SID AF -> PUSH EXP NULL)

[KT] I am not sure if it is always possible for the headend to determine this (e.g. consider multi-domain). It would be better for the controller to indicate this explicitly since it is the one that has computed the path and is aware of what is being used.



- always assume PUSH for IPv6 (which also means always assume IPv4-only dataplane)

- always assume PUSH for IPv4 (which also means always assume IPv6-only dataplane)

[KT] The above two may be selected as well based on implementation support/capabilities or what is enabled.



Each of these behaviors make assumptions depending on the primary use case and perhaps having them documented (and potentially referred to as Option A, Option B, etc or something similar) would help avoiding confusion when discussing with vendors.

[KT] IMHO this is very much implementation specific. There may be a default option that an implementation chooses when valid ENLP is not given or exp-null label not included but then it may also give a config knob. Not sure if giving them names helps. But again, I will leave it to the authors of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy on how they would like to incorporate this.



PS: I assume the Type number assignment will be handled by the ongoing effort Ketan has mentioned in the context of policy name Sub-TLV but just in case wanted to call this out too.

[KT] We are still awaiting the code-point allocations (suggestions have been provided already).



Thanks,

Ketan



thanks,

pk






--
Przemyslaw "PK" Krol |
 Strategic Network Engineer
ing | pkrol@google.com<mailto:pkrol@google.com>