Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4693A1646 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:05:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable 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 gj1CF8-AMAV4 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62CE3A1642 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:05:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4236; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1607519147; x=1608728747; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fY7h7OTrEJC1FLUEZpEHaCqBQtDj8sGoD9fumSRZaf8=; b=V3XlDJuKIXlXnt2PrjGSt5qOD88u1LG9XwJod1O+eHJJaIc/l6nJq3Jh KyJ1n8KTZV2l9ivmyU1jds9GBDSjnHoENfJE48hwE+pS8ZN3tVLRSDdZ8 cHr8iYcCM4uMrMwT6NVUzaxidF5G+H6sPinTJ7XWKgHjUqOySJ2hiFLRH 0=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BvAAACy9BflxbLJq1iGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBT4N2ASASLoQ+iQSHdy0DnDMLAQEBDy8EAQGESgKCACY4EwIDAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhkKFcgEBAQECAR0GFU0ECxEEAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?gIfBAMCAkYJCAYBDAYCAQGDIoJnIKwRdoEyhVeDVoFCgQ4qjV6BQT+BESeCc?= =?us-ascii?q?T6CXQSBOwEBgzeCXwSBVRCBQg2BHQ4xKxk1nCKKZZEzgn6DI5gTBQcDH4Mki?= =?us-ascii?q?iWFLI9ChhONaaFLgW0hgVkzGggbFTuCaVAZDY47HY4TQAMwAjUCBgoBAQMJi?= =?us-ascii?q?lwBAQ?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,405,1599523200"; d="scan'208";a="31768100"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Dec 2020 13:05:42 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0B9D5gL2023331; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:05:42 GMT
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com> <169b063524dc4420b37016d2428fc85c@huawei.com> <29d3d16a-237d-e657-e84c-c74a1e5a841f@cisco.com> <c779c9da19264b718effd3d0442c8616@huawei.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8024148b-df7d-d79f-26b6-c64b9113cd9e@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:05:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c779c9da19264b718effd3d0442c8616@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/C8WSdN2HEaiAn7cC6Xyil2j5AmI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 13:05:49 -0000

Hi Jimmy,

On 09/12/2020 13:52, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:45 PM
>> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
>> (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
>>
>> Jimmy,
>>
>> On 09/12/2020 11:10, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>>> Hi authors,
>>>
>>> Here is one comment following the previous discussion on the mail list
>>> and the IETF meeting.
>>>
>>> The IP Algorithm TLV is defined to advertise the IP Flex-Algorithm
>>> participation information, there is no separate TLV for IPv4 or IPv6
>>> Flex-Algo participation.
>>
>> the draft clearly says:
>>
>>      "The IP Flex-Algorithm participation advertised in ISIS IP Algorithm
>>      Sub-TLV is topology independent."
> 
> This does not answer my question.
> 
> Section 7 gives the rules of IP Flex-Algo Path calculation:
> 
> " IP Flex-Algorithm application only considers participating nodes during the Flex-Algorithm calculation.  When computing paths for a given Flex-Algorithm, all nodes that do not advertise participation for IP Flex-Algorithm, as described in Section 5, MUST be pruned from the topology."
> 
>>From IP Algorithm TLV, one cannot tell whether a node participates in Flex-Algo 128 for IPv4, IPv6 or both. This would cause the problem described below: >
> When one node uses IP Flex-Algo participation to compute a path for an IPv6 address advertised with Flex-Algo 128, it will not prune the nodes which participate in Flex-Algo 128 for IPv4 only from the topology. Thus IPv6 packets following that path may get dropped on nodes which participates in Flex-Algo 128 for IPv4 only.

FA calculation is done for every MT topology independently.

For IPv4 it will take all routers participating in MT0 and run the FA 
calculation on top of MT0.

For IPv6 it will take all routers participating in MT2 and run the FA 
calculation on top of MT2.


> 
>>
>>> If some nodes participate in IPv4 Flex-Algo 128, and some of these
>>> nodes participate in IPv6 Flex-Algo 128, how to ensure that the path
>>> computed for IPv6 Flex-Algo will not use the nodes which only
>>> participate in IPv4 Flex-Algo 128?
>>
>> there is no such thing as "IPv4 Flex-Algo 128" or "IPv6 Flex-Algo 128".
>> There is only algo 128.
> 
> Agree that Flex-Algo 128 is application or data plane agnostic, and as we discussed the same Flex-Algo can be used with both IPv4 and IPv6 (maybe also for SR-MPLS, SRv6). These terms are used as shorthand of "Flex-Algo 128 used with IPv4 or IPv6"
> 
>> You are mixing data plane support with algo participation.
> 
> I understand Flex-Algo definition is application agnostic, and Flex-Algo participation is application specific, it is just not clear to me whether IPv4 and IPv6 can be treated as one application.

yes they can.

> 
>> If you want an algo to only include nodes that supports specific data plane,
>> you would need to define a specific algo for it.
> 
> This IMO contradicts with the base concept: Flex-Algo definition is application (or data plane) agnostic.

not really, see above.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> Best regards,
> Jie
> 
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jie
>>>
>>> *From:*Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
>>> (acee)
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:13 AM
>>> *To:* lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
>>> *Subject:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
>>> (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
>>>
>>> This IP Flex Algorithm draft generated quite a bit of discussion on
>>> use cases and deployment prior to IETF 109 and there was generally
>>> support for WG adoption. This begins a two week WG adoption call.
>>> Please indicate your support or objection to WG adoption on this list
>>> prior to
>>> 12:00 AM UTC on December 16^th , 2020. Also, review comments are
>>> certainly welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Acee
>>>
> 
> 
>