Re: [Lsr] SRLG usage in the IGP Flexible Algorithm draft

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Alexander,

On 30/04/2020 17:21, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question about the proposed usage of SRLG in the IGP Flexible 
> Algorithm <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07> draft.
> 
> This usage is defined Section 12 of the draft with the reference to the 
> SRLG exclude rule as following:
> 
> 
> 
>        2.  Check if any exclude SRLG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
> 
>        definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if the link is
> 
>        part of any SRLG that is also part of the SRLG exclude rule.  If
> 
>        the link is part of such SRLG, the link MUST be pruned from the
> 
>        computation.
> 
> This looks effectively undistinguishable from the usage of the exclude 
> Admin groups rule as described in the same Section 12 of the draft:
> 
>        1.  Check if any exclude rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
> 
>        definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if any color that
> 
>        is part of the exclude rule is also set on the link.  If such a
> 
>        color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the computation.
> 
>  From my POV, with such a definition, there is no need in the dedicated 
> “Exclude SRLG” rule as part of the specification of the Flexible 
> Algorithm, since such the SRLG Exclude rule can be replaced with a 
> matching Exclude All rule  using Admin groups.

there is one very important point. Maintaining the affinities is 
operationally complex. Some networks have already deployed SRLGs. If 
SRLG exclude with flex-algo gives people what they want, asking them to 
deploy affinities would be redundant. That's the main point.

Simple use case:

I have two SRLGs in the network. For some specific traffic I want to 
send the data via two independent streams. I want to avoid single SRLG 
failure to affect both streams. I define two flex-algos, each one 
excluding one SRLG. No need to define extra affinities. This is btw not 
an academical example, this has been requested by real users.


> 
> I also think that such a usage of SRLG does not fit the needs of the 
> TI-LFA 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03> 
> draft that considers an SRLG as a resource that fails when any of the 
> links/nodes comprising it fails. E.g., it says in Section 2:
> 
>     The Point of Local Repair (PLR), S, needs to find a node Q (a repair
> 
>     node) that is capable of safely forwarding the traffic to a
> 
>     destination D affected by the failure of the protected link L, a set
> 
>     of links including L (SRLG), or the node F itself.  The PLR also
> 
>     needs to find a way to reach Q without being affected by the
> 
>     convergence state of the nodes over the paths it wants to use to
> 
>     reach Q: the PLR needs a loop-free path to reach Q.

I see no conflict between the LFA draft and flex-algo one. If you do, 
please be precise where the conflict is.

> 
> To me this suggests that SRLGs are only relevant when computing backup 
> paths for specific failures, e.g., an LFA for failure of a link hat 
> belongs to a specific SRLG must be computed in the topology from which 
> all the links belonging to the same SRLG are pruned. This understanding 
> matches RFC 4090 that states in Section 6.2 “Procedures for Backup Path 
> Computation”:

SRLG is a mechanism to express fate share. I see no reason why SRLG 
could not be used for other than LFA purposes.

thanks,
Peter


> 
>        - The backup LSP cannot traverse the downstream node and/or link
> 
>          whose failure is being protected against.  Note that if the PLR
> 
>          is the penultimate hop, node protection is not possible, and
> 
>          only the downstream link can be avoided. The backup path may be
> 
>          computed to be SRLG disjoint from the downstream node and/or
> 
>          link being avoided.
> 
> If SRLGs are only relevant for computation of backup paths, it is not 
> clear to me if they should be part of the definition of a specific 
> Flexible Algorithm.
> 
> What, if anything, did I miss?
> 
> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
> 
> Sasha
> 
> Office: [phone]
> 
> Cell:      [phone]
> 
> Email:   [e-mail]
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains 
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have 
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and 
> then delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________