Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 08:44 UTC
Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 483BE1B28B8; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 01:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 UK3CA1pVakGp; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 01:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 415AB1B28CE; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 01:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22512; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407141864; x=1408351464; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bEAntUV/2j+T4tqAF+o0+/NwzkWxVx84RBaK2TlgC7I=; b=S/dIneoah+0z2AWDT4ACLcB16hRvKnq0fZMqD5BTl1TmwYLm5LJfwIMM 1lK4yW3t6jHB7rf6ur+O8xU7L6sFmJ++AGdhbGxoMerwiT5ioYRKMqi+j 3BGKeLFKLEwp8d4shiPil+KevwoJPlU+IN4OFiQQxvZqnqaN+U4IAXJS8 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgFACNH31OtJA2E/2dsb2JhbABbgkdGUlfKQYFZAQuGd1MBgRcWd4QDAQEBBAEBASo6BwsMBAIBCBEEAQEBCh0HJwsUCQgCBAENBQiIOg3EKxePGy0EBgEGgymBHAWXWoYAkwuCB4FGbA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,796,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="341779700"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2014 08:44:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s748iMgW030000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 08:44:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.37]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 03:44:22 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Thread-Index: AQHPr8BJGKUrASnvWEuyoKK8N1jkDQ==
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:44:22 +0000
Message-ID: <8F6D261188DF40FB70701EB0D7CE7F6A1B0B7F48@sp>
References: <2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73f@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F319D19@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com> <ea683383e8654c519884fa0aead26d60@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <FD404899-F5FE-472B-9D4F-AAAC5A95BF2F@cisco.com> <D00183F2.1745%acee@cisco.com>,<53DF2E4A.9020602@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <53DF2E4A.9020602@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8F6D261188DF40FB70701EB0D7CE7F6A1B0B7F48sp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/BjzKBulQTWdxTAqW4AnjwqKXnjw
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:44:28 -0000
Multiple use cases documents. Draft-filsfils-segment-routing-use-cases being one. s. Sent from mobile -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Gredler [hannes@juniper.net] Received: Monday August 4, 2014, 08:55 To: Acee Lindem (acee) [acee@cisco.com]; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprevidi@cisco.com]; Chris Bowers [cbowers@juniper.net] CC: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]; isis-wg@ietf.org [isis-wg@ietf.org] Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 ok, so my understanding is: - have a standalone document which describes the usage of 'external' protocols (LDP, BGP-LU, RSVP, stacked labels, egress protection) and add it as a reference to all the SR one-the-wire protocol specs. (OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, BGP-LS). agreed ? /hannes On 8/1/14 23:51, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > This is my preference for the protocol extension drafts. > Thanks, > Acee > > On 8/1/14, 3:48 PM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> my point is that description of use cases should be on a >> separate document in order to avoid replication of text >> between isis and ospf drafts. >> >> Protocol extensions drafts should be focused on bits/bytes >> to be carried by the protocol. >> >> I think there's agreement on this. >> >> s. >> >> >> On Aug 1, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >> >>> I disagree. The proposed text contains four Binding TLV usage examples >>> which are not qualitatively different from the two usage examples >>> already included in section 2.4.3 of >>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02. Additional usage >>> examples are needed to clarify how the TLVs and sub-TLVs defined in this >>> document should be used, without ambiguity. >>> >>> As an example of the lack of clarity in the current text, >>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 contains two different >>> sub-TLVs for specifying SID/Label values in the Binding TLV. The two >>> options are the SID/Label Sub-TLV (section 2.3) and the Prefix-SID >>> Sub-TLV (section 2.1). The current text does not clearly explain under >>> what circumstances the two different sub-TLVs should be used in the >>> Binding TLV. The proposed text makes the usage clear by means of >>> examples. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:54 AM >>> To: Uma Chunduri >>> Cc: Chris Bowers; isis-wg@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comment on >>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 >>> >>> Uma, >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> I think we also explicitly stated this during our meeting in Toronto >>> (from the minutes): >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Uma: Needed to reference use cases in Hannes' draft. >>> Hannes: Perhaps what we could do is add some practical examples for >>> RSVP, BGP, and LDP LSPs binding. Not formal use cases. >>> Stefano: Would rather not go into applications in this ISIS draft. >>> Peter Psenak: Should go into a separate document that could be >>> referenced from both ISIS and OSPF. >>> Alia Atlas: There is a SPRING WG for such a document. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Now, note that: >>> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing >>> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop >>> >>> describe the use case of the SR Mapping Server that is implemented >>> using the Binding TLV. >>> >>> As you suggested, Hannes drafts can be combined so to produce a >>> use-case document (in spring) for the Binding TLV RSVP-based use-cases. >>> >>> >>> s. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: >>> >>>> [CC'ed Spring WG] >>>> >>>> I agree with what Chris said below in principle. But all this should >>>> not be obviously part of ISIS/IGP extensions WG documents.. >>>> >>>> Use cases for binding TLVs are explained in great details in 2 key >>>> documents (had to shuffle through to get here) - >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-0 >>>> 5 >>>> 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 >>>> >>>> IMO, both are very useful documents. >>>> It would be good to combine both of these and publish as a "spring " >>>> document and eventually it should progress there. >>>> AFAICT, Both ISIS and OSPF should refer the same eventually to get >>>> more clarity and use of binding TLVs described currently. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Uma C. >>>> >>>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris >>>> Bowers >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:42 PM >>>> To: isis-wg@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [Isis-wg] comment on >>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> The current text of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 does >>>> not clearly explain the usage of the Binding TLV for advertising LSPs >>>> created using other protocols. I would like to propose the following >>>> text to be included as section 2.5 . >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> ---------------- >>>> >>>> 2.5 Binding TLV usage examples >>>> >>>> This section gives examples of using the Binding TLV to advertise >>>> SID/label bindings associated with RSVP-TE, LDP, and BGP >>>> labeled-unicast LSPs. It also includes an example of advertising a >>>> context-id for egress node protection. All of the examples assume that >>>> the Binding TLV weight=1 and metric=100. >>>> >>>> 2.5.1 Advertising an RSVP-TE LSP using the Binding TLV >>>> >>>> Assume that R1 has signaled an RSVP-TE LSP to egress router (R4) with >>>> router-id=10.4.4.4, with ER0 = (192.1.2.2 [strict], 192.2.3.2 [strict], >>>> 192.3.4.2 [strict]). R1 can advertise a locally significant label >>>> binding for this LSP (with label value=1099) using the following >>>> values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. >>>> >>>> Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, >>>> FEC prefix=10.4.4.4 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=1099 ERO Metric sub-TLV: >>>> metric=100 >>>> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.1.2.2 >>>> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.2.3.2 >>>> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.3.4.2 >>>> >>>> 2.5.2 Advertising an LDP LSP using the Binding TLV >>>> >>>> Assume that R5 has learned a FEC-label binding via LDP for >>>> FEC=10.8.8.8/32. R5 can advertise a locally significant label binding >>>> for this LSP (with label value=5099) using the following values and >>>> sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. >>>> >>>> Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, >>>> FEC prefix=10.8.8.8 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=5099 ERO Metric sub-TLV: >>>> metric=100 >>>> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.8.8.8 >>>> >>>> 2.5.3 Advertising a BGP labeled-unicast LSP using the Binding TLV >>>> >>>> Assume that R9 has used BGP labeled-unicast to learn a label binding >>>> for prefix 10.15.15.15/32 with BGP next-hop=10.12.12.12. R9 can >>>> advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label >>>> value=7099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding >>>> TLV. >>>> >>>> Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, >>>> FEC prefix=10.15.15.15 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=7099 ERO Metric >>>> sub-TLV: metric=100 >>>> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.12.12.12 >>>> >>>> 2.5.4 Advertising a context-id for egress node protection using the >>>> Binding TLV >>>> >>>> Assume that R22 is configured in the protector role to provide egress >>>> node protection for R21 using context-id=10.0.0.21. R22 can advertise >>>> the label associated with this context-id (with label value=8099) using >>>> the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. >>>> >>>> Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=1, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, >>>> FEC prefix=10.0.0.21 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=8099 >>>> >>>> ---------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Isis-wg mailing list >>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
- [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-rout… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)