Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 18C1A124BAC; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:45:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 Pj_cw_A1YWXr; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E117D1200B9; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:44:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515609898; x=1516819498; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=cHx6qA9I6gEAwNKEuTvh/od3D9nhrDc3FX9XvLcivUg=; b=OedQavF5g5grBxKSrkBGZL9dP3lqb54wmmgHLXwzM+QUZ3txNQAWTf8Y XlOgE9c3oG99Yv0rXsSftwz4t3G+YZb+9i07wdWVbvs5OerTXL3WHXVtz 0QdX3thzvvQ+O68ZFkwZphkVdDtXy4EeCNhtiu52B6pQy5XcrOSPTpCjp 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A5BAAoXlZa/4MNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBZnQnB4QAd5gLggKXL4IWChgLhRgCGoQsQRYBAQEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUjAQEBAQMBARsXOAIIAwwEAgEGAhEEAQEFIwUCAiULFAkIAgQBDQUIiisQk?= =?us-ascii?q?UudaAiCJYo6AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBC4MVghWBV4FoAYMugy8?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBAReBbQ+CbYJpAQSjZAKICY0xgiGGHIoFgVWNO4k5AhEZAYE7ASYIKoFQb?= =?us-ascii?q?xU9giqCVByBZ3iKSYEXAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,341,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="344674183"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2018 18:44:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0AIivPv020333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:44:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:44:56 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:44:56 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc.authors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
Thread-Index: AQHTeW0yt4SjFYWr8keDb9AE3mXNFKNMYa+AgABFv5CAANRNAIAcP0AwgAPXMFA=
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:44:56 +0000
Message-ID: <61f6082bd0244856b8d558c2f4dc684f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <87ind1pzn8.fsf@chopps.org> <3406a4622ee74862bd7be4477cc0bd5a@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <3f896bcf14014858bbeff810854b627d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE304A6A21@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <626419ae2ef74f8891e3d22b4bcd115c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <626419ae2ef74f8891e3d22b4bcd115c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.119.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/YUCS1KX1BAZvgV4jSPpSrGHP5_8>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:45:02 -0000

Xiaohu -

V9 of the MSD draft has been posted with the promised changes.
Please review. I hope this leads to you revising https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/ to make use of the MSD sub-TLV to advertise RLD.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 12:13 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>om>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; isis-
> wg@ietf.org
> Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> 
> Xiaohu -
> 
> Work on a revision to the MSD draft to make the names and text consistent
> with the goal that multiple types of "MSD" will be advertised using the same
> sub-TLV is in progress. Once authors have agreed on the changes you will see
> a new revision.
> 
> Can I assume that once this is done you are open to changing the mpls-elc
> drafts to use the more generic encoding for advertising RLD?
> 
> I think this is important to make judicious use of sub-TLV code points.
> As written, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-03 requires a
> distinct sub-TLV from the set of sub-TLVs defined for TLV 242 to advertise
> RLD. If this model were to be applied for other types of "MSD", I can foresee
> consumption of a significant number of sub-TLV codepoints just for all the
> flavors of "MSD". This is one reason we defined the generic MSD sub-TLV
> format in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd. A single sub-TLV can be used
> to advertise as many different MSD types as necessary.
> 
> There are also other benefits:
> 
> An IGP agnostic registry is defined to assign MSD types. This means the same
> type value can be used in OSPF, IS-IS, and in BGP-LS.
> 
> In IS-IS there is a small efficiency gain in that we do not have to advertise a
> length for each MSD type.
> 
> I look forward to feedback from you once the new revision of the MSD draft
> is published.
> 
> Thanx.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xuxiaohu [mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:40 PM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Ketan Talaulikar
> > (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>;
> > isis- wg@ietf.org
> > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-
> > 07
> >
> > Hi Les,
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from
> > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7)
> > as described below:
> >
> > "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
> >    octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
> >    stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
> >    imposing on a packet."
> >
> > Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as
> > defined in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering
> > renaming the capability of imposing the maximum number of labels so as
> > to eliminate possible confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth
> > (WLD) as opposed to the Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in
> > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and
> > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu
> >
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Les Ginsberg
> > > (ginsberg)
> > > 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02
> > > 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org
> > > 抄送: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> > >
> > > Ketan -
> > >
> > > Thanx for the comments.
> > > I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than
> > > imposition values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted
> > > to only
> > imposition cases.
> > >
> > >   Les
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM
> > > > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
> > > > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org;
> > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG
> > > > to consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just
> > > > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits
> > > > related to other
> > > actions (e.g.
> > > > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming
> > > > across various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack
> > > > for different purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the
> > > > MSD ability to cover those as they arise.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ketan
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > Christian Hopps
> > > > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03
> > > > To: isis-wg@ietf.org
> > > > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org;
> > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-m
> > > > sd
> > > > /
> > > >
> > > > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns.
> > > >
> > > > An IPR statement exists:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-iet
> > > > f-
> > > > is
> > > > is-
> > > > segment-routing-msd
> > > >
> > > > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware
> > > > of any
> > > > *new* IPR.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chris.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg