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

Robert,

Happy to change the “PATH_ID” name into some other name if it brings down the misunderstandings…
Would you have a proposal? 

G/

> On 28 Oct 2015, at 11:07, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> 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:idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:38 AM
> 
> 
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: idr wg; jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>
> 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 <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> 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:idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:12 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: idr wg; jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>
> 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 <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> 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:gunter.van_de_velde@alcatel-lucent.com <mailto:gunter.van_de_velde@alcatel-lucent.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:26 PM
> To: Lizhenbin; Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
> Cc: jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>
> 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 <idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>
> Date: Monday 26 October 2015 at 16:51
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, "idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>" <idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
> Cc: "jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>" <jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>>
> 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:idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表 Susan Hares
> 发送时间: 2015年10月25日 22:07
> 收件人: idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
> 抄送: jgs@bgp.nu <mailto:jgs@bgp.nu>
> 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 <tel:1-877-668-4493> Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
> 
> 1-650-479-3208 <tel:1-650-479-3208> Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
> 
> Access code: 644 964 970
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>
>  
> 
> <Hares-Discussion of Flowspec.pdf>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>
> 
> 