Re: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 27 October 2016 14:58 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 892C612956C for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, 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 w_mxBgn0GPYs for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F02EE1295E0 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5909; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1477580283; x=1478789883; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=c3a6EioEvto6/0cW3bR37eV9gvxBLYHbIvI7bVAzv8o=; b=TjmeaP+TYEz7vknt8UtgVdCxv7cAskF1NTVshK+5PHS7WS6WPbP+e5O6 LdPf7CWbySRp1idI8unhDHpZji8SKR4WBnln3HYdWtqqrnR+4HKrNJ8sl g4aOLJkQGU0Y/iPgypXQNyqEd+s2j1V8TmJTFcGW37I4f6wQgreynWzBo 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BiAQCqFRJY/5FdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgyoBAQEBAR1YfQcBjS+Wf4dejGGCBx0LhXsCgXw/FAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWIohGIBAQEDAQEBATc0CwwEAgEIDgMEAQEBHgkHIQYLFAkIAgQBDQUIE4gfA?= =?us-ascii?q?w8IDrwDDYNrAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWGPYNQgQWCR4FjAQEOhWw?= =?us-ascii?q?FmWE1AYYsgwiDSoMdgXWOFoccgVWEGoQAAR42X4MbHBiBOnKGKQ0XgQkBgQgBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,553,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="340189286"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2016 14:57:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9REvvjv003656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:57:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:57:56 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:57:56 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06
Thread-Index: AQHSMFDc/M48/X7CY02do40SIYDy1KC8q3aA//+u91A=
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:57:56 +0000
Message-ID: <2bb5e61dae0a44b28f066c3ce49810a1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20161018213247.GQ639535@eidolon> <MWHPR05MB28295C2BB382A538C34C7106A9AA0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20161027141223.GG639535@eidolon>
In-Reply-To: <20161027141223.GG639535@eidolon>
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: [128.107.147.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/c9RAhG9qDQypKtTg_Y8m_NU14Vk>
Cc: "isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list \(isis-wg@ietf.org\)" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com" <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:58:18 -0000

David -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David
> Lamparter
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 7:12 AM
> To: Chris Bowers
> Cc: isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org; FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com; isis-wg@ietf.org
> list (isis-wg@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-
> src-routing-06
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:51:19PM +0000, Chris Bowers wrote:
> > I have two main comments/questions on this.
> 
> Useful feedback, Thanks!
> 
> > 1)  If I understand correctly, one reason to use existing
> > multi-topology routing mechanisms for this is the requirement to
> > support deployments where only a partial subset of routers support
> > source address dependent routing.  Ideally, this would allow an enterprise
> site to start by upgrading a subset of routers to support SADR, starting at the
> site egress routers.
> 
> Yes, that's the intent.
> 
> > However, this statement from section 2.3 seems to imply that all of
> > the routers in the enterprise network would need to support multi-
> topology even if they don't support SADR.
> 
> No, non-MT routers would be ignorant of the MT information and would not
> see any of the SADR routes -- which is exactly the intended goal.  I'll update
> the draft to say this very clearly.
> 
[Les:] For my taste the best way to do this is simply to remove the statement:

" Even installations that previously used only MTID 0
   (i.e.  no M-ISIS) would need to start using MTID TBD-MT0."

You don't need to explain the way MT works because you are making no changes to RFC 5120. Trying to "explain" is only going put you at risk for misinterpretation - and this thread is an existence proof for that. :-)

It is the first sentence of the same paragraph which is important:

" As this compatibility mechanism is not considered optional, M-ISIS
   MUST therefore be implemented for supporting the protocol outlined in
   this document."

(though I would prefer replacing "protocol" with "extensions")

  Les

> >    As this compatibility mechanism is not considered optional, M-ISIS
> >    MUST therefore be implemented for supporting the protocol outlined in
> >    this document.  Even installations that previously used only MTID 0
> >    (i.e.  no M-ISIS) would need to start using MTID TBD-MT0.
> 
> Ah, I see where I misworded that.  It needs to say "need to start using MTID
> TBD-MT0 *for transporting SADR routes*".
> 
> Sidenote:  at some point, the draft allowed non-usage of MT for greenfield
> setups (all routers with SADR support and everything in zero MTID / no M-
> ISIS used at all), with homenet in mind for that.  I'm now thinking that was a
> stupid idea.  However, there might be leftover weird wording in the draft
> from that.
> 
> > It would be good to clarify this statement.  I interpret it to mean
> > that all prefix advertisements to use TLV#237, so that even routers
> > that are currently using TLV#236 to advertise IPv6 prefixes would need
> > to start using TLV#237 instead.  But it is not clear what MT-ID a router not
> supporting SADR should use when advertising a prefix in TLV#237, since it
> can't use MT-ID=0.
> 
> No -- all non-SADR routing information stays in MTID 0/TLV 236 (or 2/237, if
> you're using separate IPv4/IPv6 MT topologies).  There is no change to non-
> SADR routes, and by using a separate MTID for SADR, they will be routed
> "around" as non-participants in the SADR topology to ensure proper SADR
> operation.  (That's the core idea why MT is used
> here.)
> 
> 
> As a nice side-effect, the operator also has some good control here in
> feeding information to non-SADR systems.  For example, they can advertise
> non-SADR default routes at one or more selected SADR routers, so traffic
> towards the internet flows towards the "SADR subdomain", where it can
> then be SADR-routed to the proper exit.
> 
> (MT makes sure SADR-routed traffic, once in the "SADR subdomain", will
> never be routed back towards non-SADR routers.  They're not in the MT
> topology, thus not in SPF, thus not in the shortest path used for SADR
> routes.)
> 
> > In any case, it would be good to clarify overall if and how this
> > solution achieves the goal of requiring only a subset of routers to be
> upgraded from a basic non-MT deployment of ISIS.
> > As part of this, it would be good to explain how TLV#222 and TLV#229
> > (the other multi-topology
> > TLVs) are used in the partial deployment case.
> >
> > 2)  For addressing PA multi-homing for IPv6 w/o NAT in existing
> > enterprises,  I would guess that >90% of enterprises running a
> > link-state routing protocol are running OSPF as opposed to ISIS.  Is the
> expectation that enterprises will switch to ISIS
> > in order to address this problem?   I would like to better understand what
> use cases this work
> > is targeted at from a practical point of view.
> 
> There is/was a companion OSPF draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-src-routing/
> which we need to revive I guess.  The OSPF version has the additional
> constraint that it is built on another draft in progress:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend/
> which led to (my personal) decision to focus on the IS-IS draft and "fix OSPF
> later."  Sorry, OSPF ;)
> 
> 
> Updating the doc -- also planning to explain some protocol-agnostic MT
> considerations in the rtgwg document -- expect another mail from me soon
> (with a diff attached),
> 
> 
> -David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg