Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Tue, 02 September 2014 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
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 041971A88FA; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YFIFXu6jAIqh; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0187.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F2A1A88CD; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BLUPR05MB289.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane
Thread-Index: Ac/HAHNIi5mjAeiDRUuQj4rS83oDug==
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000
Message-ID: <28acb42d55754debaac4ede15e2f6cfa@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.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: [66.129.239.10]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0322B4EDE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(51704005)(189002)(13464003)(164054003)(199003)(19580405001)(20776003)(19580395003)(92566001)(101416001)(46102001)(90102001)(76576001)(83322001)(2656002)(86362001)(15975445006)(33646002)(107046002)(64706001)(79102001)(74316001)(50986999)(54356999)(21056001)(99396002)(81542001)(74502001)(105586002)(83072002)(85852003)(95666004)(85306004)(80022001)(108616004)(4396001)(99286002)(74662001)(31966008)(106356001)(66066001)(76482001)(87936001)(110136001)(77982001)(81342001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB289; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/b6o8iFJ-cdGDE_DfHqK-5zuI1e0
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane
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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:55:45 -0000

Stefano,

Thanks.  I have a similar question regarding node-SID index values for different algorithms.  Does each node need to advertise a unique index value for each algorithm?   For example, in a network supporting 3 algorithms, would each node need to be assigned 3 unique index values for IPv4 forwarding?

I was hoping to be able to assign a single unique index value to each node, and then have each node advertise a different label block for each algorithm.  This would achieve the same result as assigning a unique index value for each node for each algorithm, and it would simplify network operations.  The current versions of the ISIS and OSPF SR extensions don't appear to support advertising a different label block for each algorithm, but I wanted to make sure I'm not misreading the drafts.

Thanks,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane

On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
> Stefano,
> 
> Thanks.  Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node?


there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks and the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts). Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block knowing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af.

s.



>  This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to assign a single unique index value to each node.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM
> To: Chris Bowers
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 packets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels?  From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 addresses this scenario.
> 
> 
> sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having two loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one for the ipv6.
> 
> Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology and you pick the right sid's stack.
> 
> 
>> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there would seem to be two main approaches to consider.  One could distinguish between IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the same node.
> 
> 
> correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one for v6).
> 
> s.
> 
> 
>> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bottom of the label stack by the SR ingress router.
>> 
>> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have an opinion on the best way to address this scenario?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>