Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Tue, 09 March 2021 02:52 UTC
Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
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 D16033A0B3F for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 UQph1EMmxruC for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBD7C3A0B17 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id A64E5E07615B3349FD05; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:52:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1292q1nw072983; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:52:01 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:52:00 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:52:00 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af96046e2d09c81eaf4
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202103091052008812087@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <3b76b906532b4931800a58620dc996cc@huawei.com>
References: 6413094C-F1D8-4DBF-B365-E943473FDDE4@cisco.com, BY5PR11MB433727F6D0A365B26896625DC1979@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com, 2021030421033728661450@foxmail.com, BY5PR11MB43378320E0607268CA22A900C1979@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com, CAOj+MMHL4ritC6x_STU4YqaXCqaWPnOZqAS8XSXiDzEGjfb35w@mail.gmail.com, CA+wi2hOcWh0UFJB4BMta6X9_Kv9c0Dpu3ZUbGQV324p5UYu7oA@mail.gmail.com, CABNhwV2MJoJdS8VKSfQXb5t6BNs19DOPpWF_y70kw1UP+Kk+NA@mail.gmail.com, cce9bf49158e439f8e6ae868cf16ec0f@huawei.com, 54882636-246F-4609-805D-AFE9FCC5A249@juniper.net, 3b76b906532b4931800a58620dc996cc@huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: jie.dong@huawei.com
Cc: tsaad@juniper.net, hayabusagsm@gmail.com, tonysietf@gmail.com, ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com, acee@cisco.com, robert@raszuk.net, lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 1292q1nw072983
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RrMWYEKwLRiz2m1OdVcM7KxXmCg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:52:40 -0000
Hi Jie, Now that you mention VTN-ID, I have to point out that the VTN-ID in draft-dong-lsr-sr-for-enhanced-vpn is actually the AII in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing, just a new name. That can be seen from the evolution of the historical versions of the these two drafts. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/sgyRpAW5kzcUCdat9FtW15PPbRM/ I'm glad to see that the idea in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing and draft-bestbar-spring-scalable-ns have been generously adopted by you. Regards, PSF 原始邮件 发件人:Dongjie(Jimmy) 收件人:Tarek Saad;Gyan Mishra;Tony Przygienda; 抄送人:Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);Chongfeng Xie;Acee Lindem (acee);Robert Raszuk;lsr@ietf.org; 日 期 :2021年03月09日 00:31 主 题 :Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr Hi Tarek, Your understanding about the scalability implication of this MT based VTN mechanism is correct, this is also described in section “scalability considerations” of this draft. The value of this mechanism is that it reuses several existing TLVs together to provide the required function. As for the mechanisms which can provide better scalability, you could refer to draft-dong-lsr-sr-for-enhanced-vpn, in which a new control plane VTN-ID is introduced, and multiple VTNs can be associated with the same topology. Further discussion about that draft and its relationship with draft-bestbar-lsr-spring-sa could happen in a separate thread. Best regards, Jie From: Tarek Saad [mailto:tsaad@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:44 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03 Hi authors, My understanding is the draft is proposing a separate MT topology (unique MT-ID) to identify a forwarding treatment to be enforced on a shared resource. While this may work for limited number of MT topologies (i.e. forwarding treatments), as described in RF5120 there is overhead with creating/advertising and managing and running separate SPF for each of the MT topology. This will restrict the scalability of such approach (number of forwarding treatments to be realized) using this approach. In I-D.draft-bestbar-lsr-spring-sa we are proposing carrying an independent ID (associated with the forwarding treatment) independent of the topology ID. This allows the # of forwarding treatmentst to be independent of the # of MT topologies that need to be managed by IGP; and hence, allow it to scale. Your feedback on this approach is welcome. Regards, Tarek On 3/8/21, 9:29 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Dongjie (Jimmy)" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote: Hi Gyan, Thanks for your comments. As you mentioned, both MT and MI can provide separate topologies and the topology based computation, and MI can provide separate LSDBs at some additional cost (separate adjacencies, etc.). In this document, the resource of VTN mainly refers to the forwarding plane resources, thus MT is chosen as it can provide the required functionality with less overhead. Hope this helps. Best regards, Jie From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:29 AM To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03 Dear Authors Why was MT chosen and not MI for VTN underlay network slice underpinning. MT instances has separate topology but not separate LSDB where MI Multi instance RFC 6822 has a separate LSDB for resources isolation and I think would be a better fit for VTN underlay provisioning. MI https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6822 Thanks Gyan On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote: Robert ruminated: That said I think perhaps we are indeed missing LROW WG (Local Routing Operations WG) where just like in GROW WG where mainly (Global) BGP operational aspects are discussed there could be good place to discuss operational aspects of link state protocols deployment and use cases. In fact perhaps it would also free some LSR bandwidth to really focus on protocol extensions. +1 IGPs grew a zoo of horns and bells by now and no'one tells the operators which spines are poisonous ;-) --- tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr -- Gyan Mishra Network Solutions Architect M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD Juniper Business Use Only
- [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Top… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Qin Wu
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Huzhibo
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… duzongpeng@foxmail.com
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Davey Song
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Mach Chen
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… licong@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Ran Pang(联通集团中国联通研究院- 本部)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… lichen6@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… chenhao.m@outlook.com
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Takuya Miyasaka
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi… Gyan Mishra