Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Fri, 01 August 2014 06:54 UTC
Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
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 A5A1F1A0414; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PUFaYBWzNp30; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D0CE1A0270; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5521; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406876045; x=1408085645; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Ti9U/wDgdTdHNQVHqn6TrqADXF2D4W+eHQZ1LkwPYqs=; b=OY1xONsGVDIYbS75ugG18lD7IvXBQPYv7AXxypqLIFQYrMEbfDavf9vC ql1/E25Q7MFuH+cIbUO08MogLqgijEhXJeUpioPvlq7cguQbjb1AcgaAm xpVu0+85qNe6nHVcdx4A0yH4G1RL0CsgDXWnugaEaidIHBdmDt1Ysq8Bk Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQFAKc421OtJA2H/2dsb2JhbABbgw1SVwTMAwyHSQGBBhZ3hAMBAQEDAQEBAWsLBQsCAQgRBAEBKAcnCxQJCAIEDgWIOggNylAXjxkzB4MvgRwFjmyNCYFUkwSDSWyBRQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,778,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="65696367"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2014 06:54:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s716s4CJ027004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:54:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.37]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:54:04 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Thread-Index: AQHPrQo8rJYS5fRebkqFbfM/9+sOnZu7pH4A
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:54:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com>
References: <2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73f@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F319D19@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F319D19@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.169.93]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <AA22E8957CBB3F43A4E291364AE21DC3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/dgoRTy7VoW-teJojEQfCKaIvEFw
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
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: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:54:07 -0000
Uma, I agree. I think we also explicitly stated this during our meeting in Toronto (from the minutes): -------------------------------------------------------------------- Uma: Needed to reference use cases in Hannes' draft. Hannes: Perhaps what we could do is add some practical examples for RSVP, BGP, and LDP LSPs binding. Not formal use cases. Stefano: Would rather not go into applications in this ISIS draft. Peter Psenak: Should go into a separate document that could be referenced from both ISIS and OSPF. Alia Atlas: There is a SPRING WG for such a document. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, note that: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop describe the use case of the SR Mapping Server that is implemented using the Binding TLV. As you suggested, Hannes drafts can be combined so to produce a use-case document (in spring) for the Binding TLV RSVP-based use-cases. s. On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > [CC’ed Spring WG] > > I agree with what Chris said below in principle. But all this should not be obviously part of ISIS/IGP extensions WG documents.. > > Use cases for binding TLVs are explained in great details in 2 key documents (had to shuffle through to get here) – > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-05 > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 > > IMO, both are very useful documents. > It would be good to combine both of these and publish as a “spring ” document and eventually it should progress there. > AFAICT, Both ISIS and OSPF should refer the same eventually to get more clarity and use of binding TLVs described currently. > > -- > Uma C. > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:42 PM > To: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 > > All, > > The current text of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 does not clearly explain the usage of the Binding TLV for advertising LSPs created using other protocols. I would like to propose the following text to be included as section 2.5 . > > Thanks, > Chris > > ---------------- > > 2.5 Binding TLV usage examples > > This section gives examples of using the Binding TLV to advertise SID/label bindings associated with RSVP-TE, LDP, and BGP labeled-unicast LSPs. It also includes an example of advertising a context-id for egress node protection. All of the examples assume that the Binding TLV weight=1 and metric=100. > > 2.5.1 Advertising an RSVP-TE LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R1 has signaled an RSVP-TE LSP to egress router (R4) with router-id=10.4.4.4, with ER0 = (192.1.2.2 [strict], 192.2.3.2 [strict], 192.3.4.2 [strict]). R1 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=1099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.4.4.4 > SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=1099 > ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.1.2.2 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.2.3.2 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.3.4.2 > > 2.5.2 Advertising an LDP LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R5 has learned a FEC-label binding via LDP for FEC=10.8.8.8/32. R5 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=5099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.8.8.8 > SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=5099 > ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.8.8.8 > > 2.5.3 Advertising a BGP labeled-unicast LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R9 has used BGP labeled-unicast to learn a label binding for prefix 10.15.15.15/32 with BGP next-hop=10.12.12.12. R9 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=7099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.15.15.15 > SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=7099 > ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.12.12.12 > > 2.5.4 Advertising a context-id for egress node protection using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R22 is configured in the protector role to provide egress node protection for R21 using context-id=10.0.0.21. R22 can advertise the label associated with this context-id (with label value=8099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=1, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.0.0.21 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=8099 > > ---------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
- [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-rout… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)