Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Mon, 29 December 2014 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@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 B26081A0013; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:26:42 -0800 (PST)
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, 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 tKyAh_WmukMs; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0736.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::736]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB911A0007; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.139) by BY1PR0501MB1383.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:26:16 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:26:15 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AdAfZ+2t8gRxJR1gRJOVEF41ljB4rwD1jwiAAAAaeDAAAGH0AAAABIpw
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:26:15 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB1381610E47F46E81528B5416D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY1PR0501MB13819883015276791F20D631D5540@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A10B35.4030301@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381B131A68B321264B7E930D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A10E78.6030006@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A10E78.6030006@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.10]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=shraddha@juniper.net;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1383;
x-forefront-prvs: 0440AC9990
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(479174004)(24454002)(51704005)(13464003)(2900100001)(31966008)(54206007)(74316001)(2950100001)(2201001)(107046002)(102836002)(15975445007)(120916001)(33656002)(68736005)(86362001)(54606007)(92566001)(97736003)(62966003)(77156002)(50986999)(122556002)(21056001)(64706001)(46102003)(66066001)(99396003)(101416001)(40100003)(93886004)(54356999)(76176999)(4396001)(106356001)(99286002)(2656002)(230783001)(76576001)(20776003)(87936001)(19580395003)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1383; H:BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Dec 2014 08:26:15.9173 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1383
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/c-UpE2d8BM18exqLICaqt0STjdA
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
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, 29 Dec 2014 08:26:42 -0000

Yes.You are right.

Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means build a path and provide protection.
If this is off it means build a path with no protection.
The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on this flag.

The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with p flag on or off based on the need of the service.
Rgds
Shraddha


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde; draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Shraddha,

the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the prefix is locally attached.

thanks,
Peter

On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> Peter,
>
> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while 
> building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason 
> could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected node-sid that this service can make use of.
>
> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service 
> endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of representing  unprotected paths.
>
> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde; 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Shraddha,
>
> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>> Authors,
>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the 
>> label is protected or not.
>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to indicate 
>> whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
>> Any thoughts on this?
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>
>
> .
>