Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS SR Flexible Algorithm (Resending with alias correction)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 21 November 2017 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34ED129466; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 03:39:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ei1HDlTv81lS; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 03:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7749412946A; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 03:39:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511264352; x=1512473952; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=02U2DyjfLPwEno04f6MbxjwGpoCDPn24Z31RkRt9ZRc=; b=POfqUyh+CY79mxK7lviE54ydxIokEqpTDtvEuufwXIgjpXbgCUjYg4Ub nhiArrgz2ls215h6ipxIJYtgjZXsMJzN3o8aDptJIJfUr8j/0cFBzXaa6 jyozRVdI1EsvAqXf+6AzHb7Xc4nrql50iEeGYmPdNOUKItVBHolZQPeKB A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CaAADLDxRa/4QNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM8gVQnB4N4ih+PKYF9lmKCEQqFOwIahGw/GAEBAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohR4BAQEEIxFFDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIwFAEICAIEAQ0FiiKocIIniwABA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQ+CJYIHgz2DLIUbFw+Cb4JjBaI+ApUKk0y?= =?us-ascii?q?WBQIRGQGBOQEfOYF0ehWDLYJcHIFnd4pigRQBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,432,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="34390144"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Nov 2017 11:39:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vALBdBPJ019420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:39:11 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 06:39:10 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 06:39:10 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo@ietf.org" <draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo@ietf.org>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ISIS SR Flexible Algorithm (Resending with alias correction)
Thread-Index: AQHTYkuQ/vDDy5CTK0uGcKqrISIUUQ==
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:39:10 +0000
Message-ID: <D63976C3.DAA5C%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D63886A4.DA829%acee@cisco.com> <5A13517C.8010500@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27068A7CFD5DB35B67F92558D5230@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR05MB27068A7CFD5DB35B67F92558D5230@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E45190FFB746FD4996BB1848E4A540F4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/GlZYoxt2IQjYMWfwiL8vQw_pZ6E>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS SR Flexible Algorithm (Resending with alias correction)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:39:15 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 

The situation I’m talking about is not when the same SID is advertised. It
is simpler since the two IS-IS routers advertise different SIDs but use
different algorithms. In this case, SR-domain ingress router local policy
would dictate which topology and/or algorithm is selected.

Thanks, 
Acee

On 11/20/17, 11:12 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote:

>Peter/Acee,
>
>Lets assume 1.1.1.1 is advertised by two nodes A and B.
>A assigns a SID 10 :algo 200
>B assigns SID 10: algo 201
>
>According to conflict resolution draft section 3.4 SID conflicts
>Will be examined for algorithms and smallest algo wins
>So remote nodes will program nexthops for SID 10 based on algo 200.
>
>I think this case is addressed in conflict resolution draft.
>It would be better to handle all the conflict situation in conflict
>resolution draft
>Rather than putting different pieces in different drafts.
>
>Rgds
>Shraddha
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:35 AM
>To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>;
>draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo@ietf.org
>Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: ISIS SR Flexible Algorithm (Resending with alias correction)
>
>Hi Acee,
>
>On 20/11/17 19:19 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Hi Shraddha, Peter, et al,
>>
>> The comment on the draft I had was that the conflict case where two
>> ISIS routers advertise the same multi-homed prefix with a different
>> algorithm needs to be covered. I wouldn’t try and optimize for this
>> and would just do whatever is simplest but avoids loops (e.g., log the
>> situation and prefer the path computed with the lowest numbered
>>algorithm).
>
>prefix can have SIDs for many algorithms. Prefix-SID for one algorithm is
>independent and orthogonal to prefix-SID for any other algorithm.
>
>There is no need for all sources of the multi-homed prefix to include the
>same set of Algo-SIDs. Each source can advertise an independent set.
>
>The case is similar to Alg-0 SID, where prefix is advertised from two
>different sources and one source advertise the Alg-0 SID and other does
>not.
>
>thanks,
>Peter
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>