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

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 BB3BA3A1652 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:02:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 fpc3qR_OF_oF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F26EE3A17BC for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CrcYK71hFz67MPC for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 20:58:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.99) by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:01:49 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:01:47 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:01:47 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Parag Kaneriya <pkaneria@juniper.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
Thread-Index: AQHWyCa69SgvuXvqQUSruOMjcUOnRanukOqggAAPEOCAACQQ0A==
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:01:47 +0000
Message-ID: <db4f00e26d7844debdaac2ac2c1004d1@huawei.com>
References: <777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com> <169b063524dc4420b37016d2428fc85c@huawei.com> <BYAPR05MB4198A5407DDBF476D68EBBFCDFCC0@BYAPR05MB4198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4198A5407DDBF476D68EBBFCDFCC0@BYAPR05MB4198.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.188.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_db4f00e26d7844debdaac2ac2c1004d1huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Lw6iegFsvCh53-H8xcZnp4L5bkM>
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 13:02:24 -0000

Hi Parag,

Thanks for your reply. While perhaps I should make my comment clearer:

I agree a node which does not support a particular address family (e.g. IPv6) will not install route for that family. While according to the rules in section 7, this node will be included in the topology for path computation of one Flex-Algo by another node, just because it advertises the participation to the same Flex-Algo for another address family (e.g. IPv4). In my understanding this would cause packet drop. Did I miss something?

Best regards,
Jie

From: Parag Kaneriya [mailto:pkaneria@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:46 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: WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

IP Algorithm SUBTLV indicate the participation for particular flex algo by node.  Participation doesn't depend on whether it support ipv4 prefix or ipv6 prefix.  Node which doesn't support particular family will not install that family route.

Regards
Parag



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

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. 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?

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<mailto: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 16th, 2020. Also, review comments are certainly welcome.
Thanks,
Acee