Re: Size of CR in CRH

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,


> Node B decrements Segments Left and looks for entry 15 in **its**
CRH-FIB. If finds:

>

>     On Node B:  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict,
Link = B->C

Your example works when the entire network has a single segment routed path
:)

What happens if also Node Z somewhere in the domain (or maybe even
connected to B) advertised SID 15 with some different outbound link ?

So Node B will have two FIB entries:

  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict, Link = B->C
  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node Z, Method = strict, Link = X->Y

So how will B decided which one to use ?

Best,
R.




On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:11 PM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> Let’s address your question with an example. Assume that Node A is sending
> a packet to Node D. The delivery path includes the following strictly
> routed hops:
>
>
>
>    - Node A to Node B over link A->B
>    - Node B to Node C over link B->C
>    - Node C to Node D over link C->D
>
>
>
> Now we populate the CRH-FIB on Nodes B and C as follows:
>
>
>
>    - On Node B:  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict,
>    Link = B->C
>    - On Node C:  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node D, Method = strict,
>    Link = C->D
>
>
>
> Now, Node A formats a packet as follows:
>
>
>
>    - IPv6 Destination Address = Node B
>    - CRH Segments Left = 2
>    - Identifier list = [15,15]
>
>
>
> Node A sends this packet to Node B over link A->B. Node B decrements
> Segments Left and looks for entry 15 in **its** CRH-FIB. If finds:
>
>
>
>    - On Node B:  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node C, Method = strict,
>    Link = B->C
>
>
>
> So, Node B updates the IPv6 address and sends the packet to Node C over
> link B->C. Node C decrements Segments Left and looks for entry 15 in *
> *its** CRH-FIB. If finds:
>
>
>
>    - On Node C:  Identifier = 15, IPv6 Address = Node D, Method = strict,
>    Link = C->D
>
>
>
> So, Node C updates the IPv6 address and sends the packet to Node D over
> link C->D.
>
>
>
>                                                           Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:35 AM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* 6man <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: Size of CR in CRH
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> While we are at the local vs global significance of SIDs can you please
> elaborate how do you resolve the conflict where given SID value is
> advertised by more then one node ? In fact imagine that all nodes in a
> domain choose to advertise the same SID value "15" to forward the traffic
> to their respective peers. So packet arrives at segment endpoint node A
> with CRH consisting of SID list 15, 15, 15, 15 ... where each value 15
> means different behaviour on different node.
>
>
>
> How do you even know which way to forward the packet ?
>
>
>
> See in this case your mapping plane will contain different functions on
> different nodes signalled with the same SID.
>
>
>
> I understand that you are trying to silently borrow set of procedures from
> SR-MPLS here as documented in RFC8660. But if you just open this RFC you
> will see section 2.5 or 2.6 without which you just can not simply propose
> to treat SID as locally significant in any form of segment routing. Of
> course unless you would consume two SIDs per node.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> > Now recall that identifiers have node local significance.
>
>
>
> I was talking about case described in yr draft section 7:
>
>
>
> "Applications can:
>
>
>
>        o Allocate SIDs so that they have *domain-wide significance*."
>
>
>
> While not a must - it is an option. So I believe my observation stays
> valid till draft either removes that option or describes scaling properties
> differences between both domain wide and local significance of the SIDs.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:01 AM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> Consider the following network:
>
>
>
>    - Contains 65,000 routers
>    - Each router has 500 directly connected neighbors or fewer
>    - Uses 16-bit CRH
>
>
>
> In this network, each node might have 65,499 CRH-FIB entries:
>
>
>
>    - 64,999 CRH-FIB entries cause packets to follow the least-cost path
>    to another node in the domain
>    - 500 CRH-FIB entries cause packets to traverse a specific link to a
>    specific neighbor.
>
>
>
> As a mnemonic device, an operator might assign identifiers as follows:
>
>
>
>    - 0-65,000 identify CRH-FIB entries that cause packets to follow the
>    least-cost path to another node in the domain
>    - 65,001 – 65,565 identify CRH-FIB entries that that cause packets to
>    traverse a specific link to a specific neighbor.
>
>
>
> Now recall that identifiers have node local significance. So, Node A and
> Node B might both have a CRH-FIB entry that is identified by the value
> 65,001. However:
>
>
>
>    - The CRH-FIB entry on Node A causes packets to traverse a particular
>    link towards Node X
>    - The CRH-FIB entry on Node B causes packets to traverse a different
>    link towards Node Y.
>
>
>
> I think that this example refutes the premise of your argument, so there
> is not further need to address the conclusion.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:20 PM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* 6man <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: Size of CR in CRH
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> HI,
>
>
>
> So just to make sure I understand this analogy of 16 bit -- 2^16 = 65536
> nodes. I think this is only on paper.
>
>
>
> Imagine I have 1000 routers so if I divide the 16 bit space by 1000 I get
> at most 65 local node behaviours if anyone would like to embed such into
> the SID.
>
>
>
> That means that if my router have more then 65 interfaces I am not able to
> steer packets by src route out of my router ... I must always depend on the
> lookup of next SID how to forward the packets.
>
>
>
> That also means that if I want to apply any form of NP in segment endpoint
> I am quite limited to the number of local functions I could use.
>
>
>
> To conclude - Let me restate to what I and others already said - flat SID
> space domain wide in mapping plane is a mistake. Yes this is like MPLS, but
> this does not make it great again due to that legacy.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>