Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> Fri, 01 August 2014 18:01 UTC
Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@ericsson.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 2E7AE1B2885; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 6_BvYngoRVys; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831BF1A0067; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-40-53db803735e5
Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 43.A2.25146.7308BD35; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:55:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:01:55 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Thread-Index: AQHPrVVkEtJy2yaQVkWkZ8IXvaT02pu8CZ7Q
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:01:54 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F31A55C@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73f@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F319D19@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt655w+1gg47jChY/1rtaHD30ntVi /e5HTBbHL/xmdGDxmPJ7I6vHkiU/mTyuN11lD2CO4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4fewwW0GbQcWD r2uYGxi71LsYOTkkBEwk+h/1MELYYhIX7q1nA7GFBI4ySmw7VNzFyAVkL2OUOH54CzNIgk1A T+Lj1J/sILaIgKnE+RnngeIcHMwCJRINFxxBTGGBQInbK8whKoIkXn56wAphG0n8/3ILbDyL gIrEtge7wdbyCvhKnO2YzQKx6gyjxO1vp8FGcgrYSlzttAapYQQ67fupNUwgNrOAuMStJ/OZ IE4WkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLxP1YIW0li0tJzrBD1OhILdn9ig7C1JZYtfM0MsVdQ4uTMJywTGMVm IRk7C0nLLCQts5C0LGBkWcXIUVqcWpabbmS4iREYPcck2Bx3MC74ZHmIUYCDUYmHVyH1drAQ a2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcV7N6nnBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhjzeosdz3dfX9TT LsK34df6iCbJucJyHZVPHbVv/G582vSlcknU5VvbnxjF77bQ79kUbyd+a5NqYkPRgfW/egtk st8G5ussTphRzTWZ132bnMnOJ/yHuZdMayjcsfa8nU9ynVxKE9eZvgw7uzkX+M9EyzT2q33k UlXOVLhmvSFt2qTG9JXtWkosxRmJhlrMRcWJAJ1kqwB/AgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/gqZZ6y7hhwP7blr9RFRgDNrtxus
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 18:01:59 -0000
Stefano, Sure. I agree. Thanks for pointing out mapping server overlap here and usage of Binding TLVs. IMO, it's good to refer these explicitly from the binding TLV sub-sections of IGP documents (as things are not obvious as is with the case for node-sid/adj-sid). -- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:54 PM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Chris Bowers; isis-wg@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 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)