Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 05 June 2014 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD281A0201 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 kIpgOoqbaZqd for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ED981A01E5 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id rd18so989926iec.10 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fBiZLCUr6F1icWGQGsAnMA+QfeLiRRe/WlsBRSI6lV0=; b=lK6LScJjSrYXzw3fSAsyKAL1EmdqfzcccPSlNg+xXpleVdngvJcWEHWljLSxO8DdQI 3+nBoW6389HlhFENsChdN8x8s9TsOLLJ0lDWwDycnxqgYMVdOKR2tZB1ukQERd1AkfHR UdwglY4aeraldVbGYLPGeRSTh/UEwOhY+Lt33wHm0QE4PZLEXxpThHIMCpi95W4OFDuM 49L9QY7/Qjz9B7u38u3OjK5jf0dd2/vIbFbDaBBxwdx/ziVa4Vvp/kmU4fr3l9SK2uwo Ec8r6qvJyJqitYHkD+wTJs4wtinSWF55uxdEABEuZGW2iEE4HGbdDvKHtfE8Qkm6UH/1 oBLg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.62.40 with SMTP id v8mr20888277igr.21.1401979779784; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E1D8679@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827D488@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CA+b+ERmCusprkp3nYcwUtK4F0qmiv6-DogsEQ7vcJSgPRaHuPg@mail.gmail.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E1D8412@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERndrSVcWmWWhHBOP==oub+V0gcMeLZ9X1dyKd9AfYHvXg@mail.gmail.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E1D8679@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:49:39 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PK9c8zMdDSihx28eFFvjutceWqA
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnX+mVwnWf-jtZEUYRuZhEU-VmztrdObfdwmzrXz=erVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/0NlL3b4_3FvJLs4qw52EZ-uCNjs
Cc: "draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org" <draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:50:28 -0000

> always advertise _max_ number of SIDs for ECMP.

I meant that. No point to go lower at all.

> Still, in an SR network consisting of 100 nodes ... each network node used to have 100 node SID forwarding entries (assuming one SID advertised per node) but now each network node will have 3200 or 6400 or 12800 node SID forwarding entries. That's a huge increase.

Assume no aggregation it looks huge, but it's tiny if you compare it
with state required on ingress as example where all of your overlay
services reside.

> Sure the forwarding table can do some aggregation but number of "resources" reserved, consumed, advertised and OAM requires to support them are still enlarged significantly.

I do not agree. Assume v6 SR where I advertise instead of single SID
say a block of /96. It is still one prefix for all what forwarding
needs to care about.  What would be different for that prefix vs /128
prefix from the point of view of  "resources" reserved, consumed,
advertised and OAM ?

> I still see tackling EL to be appealing :)

Is this still more appealing then say mpls over UDP draft ;-) ?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-05

Cheers,
R.