Re: [Idr] Regd. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label/

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

Satya,

>)  Suggestion was given to use another label mode i.e., per-prefix (per-vrf does not apply here).

Perhaps it may help to clarify explicitly why per-vrf does not apply,
to both scenarios in PD#1<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label-00.html#section-4.1> and PD#2<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label-00.html#section-4.2>.

Also, another question I have is: why the constructs used for PD#1 does
not work for PD#2 as-well?

I’ve thought about such scenarios in MNH<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-09#appendix-A.9> draft (that you mention in PD#1 context),
I think the same construct should apply for PD#2 as-well.

After a PE1-ISP1 link failure, as long as the repaired traffic arriving at PE2 from PE1
is coming with a label, whose route at PE2 does not have a nexthop leg pointing back to
PE1, that should avoid the traffic forwarding loop.

Thanks
Kaliraj



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Satya Mohanty (satyamoh) <satyamoh=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:36 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, MEANS, ISRAEL L <[e-mail]>, RAMADENU, PRAVEEN <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Regd. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label/
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Keyur and the chairs,

Towards the end of my IETF presentation, the audio was coming garbled at my end and not at all coherent.
I went over the recording today. I am replying to the two questions/observations.

1)  Suggestion was given to use another label mode i.e., per-prefix (per-vrf does not apply here).  However, using per-prefix label allocation would result in the inline RRs/ASBRs exhausting their label threshold (platform dependent  very quickly as the route scale increases (platform dependent upper-limit). Therefore, using per-prefix label allocation was ruled out in this deployment after being given due consideration.

Cisco IOS-XR supports the per-nexthop-recvd-label mode for some-time now in Option-B ASBR and RR with nh-self use-cases, precisely for this reason.  I believe other vendors has an equivalent mode. Idea is to take advantage of the optimal label allocation by this mode and simultaneously ensure fast convergence via BGP PIC.

2) Regarding the suggestion of not using the proposed attribute, the original thought was to use tunnel-encaps attribute. The problem that I saw is that the tunnel-encaps can have many sub-tlvs for different purposes, and if we wanted to restrict the advertisement of the secondary label to routers that do not need it, it will not be that easy as those same routers may need some other TLVs present in that same tunnel-encaps attribute. But, we do look forward to getting your inputs/suggestions on this as you indicated.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
--Satya



From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Satya Mohanty (satyamoh) <satyamoh=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:44 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, MEANS, ISRAEL L <[e-mail]>, RAMADENU, PRAVEEN <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Call for IETF 117 IDR agenda items
Hi Jie,

We would like to request a slot of 10 minutes to present the following draft. Tuesday slot is preferable.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-idr-secondary-label/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DaZXd0sYsFJ37OdJZ1gn2Mpnjt7wudsvJ47pN1kVDsKn6dSgI5mayf81fOT0YlrYyMycFFG7lq2IQ0Am-cU5U2Vdz_IDOAAE$>

Thanks,
--Satya

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:57 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Call for IETF 117 IDR agenda items
Dear all,

The draft agenda of IETF 117 is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/agenda<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/agenda__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DaZXd0sYsFJ37OdJZ1gn2Mpnjt7wudsvJ47pN1kVDsKn6dSgI5mayf81fOT0YlrYyMycFFG7lq2IQ0Am-cU5U2Vdz0lADQCK$>. The IDR sessions are scheduled as below:

- Monday Session II  13:00 - 15:00 (local time)  Plaza B

- Thursday Session IV 17:00 – 18:00 (local time)  Continental 4

Please start to send any IDR agenda item request to me and CC the chairs ([e-mail]). Please include the name of the person who will be presenting, and the estimate time you'll need (including Q/A).

If you plan to make a presentation, please keep in mind the IDR tradition, "no Internet Draft - no time slot". You should also plan to send your slides to me and CC the chairs no later than 24 hours prior to the IDR session, though earlier is better. Please number your slides for the benefit of remote attendees. By default your slides will be converted to PDF and presented from the PDF.

Potential presenters may want to take a look at the checklist for presenting at IDR:

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/idr/trac/wiki/Checklist%20for%20presenting%20at%20an%20IDR%20meeting

Best regards,
Jie