Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 15 August 2020 03:20 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 007413A0C30; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 kg8gVP3OOMJj; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3363A0C2D; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id k18so2112114uao.11; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FEp+R/JI1Bq3FuE2kCwbeGZrBFbemir6i9jKFH/ZyT4=; b=JyOAa71kSkgRu0nakqcBwO4WaGHt83SVedUbk35mDVzqUpoPGSQmlIDP0IGA0PN2zG UlcKja2riabuTZHQCfDchm2705PrsU21ZYqD8EamKIjXTAwxyrMyd3uivP4QWCbRezPM YC9M4vunUPqYrM6POuV8br+AKBTYo2OoGlHiIZTbxWPMgovYDyeoYtSCTnFhcQsMdg2g CF/drN9W9TIoMVEsmRW3WgqmECvgnxWptTEBxQ8J98MVSYiaS1M5ri5a+F7BI+a+h4vO 5bgzDlpXAdXVEyQaJmJ2MIpYbAfrI4Aal4c8so7lnGXLnAS6E7R+hckRk9z/fg+tWR6M 2HBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FEp+R/JI1Bq3FuE2kCwbeGZrBFbemir6i9jKFH/ZyT4=; b=o6/IL/58kDTsKapl0IjfXu0cwmanuAjojDRVjSOgNw1FdLTT4S0RXRxppu8RB0anYu Vn3z/L5Ud/V9VnEvtSlJ7JZeYTuz5ebAVlpyYZhHtzyNU98SodG5ZZJ1EbnHHegAkfJ1 KhZooxWpkCksAKb+mwuALOzpREBoecB2D2yczCHVGbSbk4ZSobrM7/FLMcpQMgTk/qEw 7BN6aM4YKVrQSrPmwSnvChbNRv/HNwB4IH43BUyItsNv5PYgwBKdzXiPzqC77bXFK/mz hLkAfDbdDGxMOTI217svbl7hwO1YoCWPYS3lgU/1ildvATLOOPq9L5lNH0eBfrzCCEbs J2pA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Sf+AIdWPdFKVQVBQYzUoxkG1qDE0zHKlDAgHuEXRRwOd4hZsL f/GnGY1vYAMQW76y9jcNUXE8YHlU9MYkBEW7lkA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTjJazNjt4g9XJ+a9lZFon7hc8k4xLN3wccVvyIWSiJ+TrdSJI1xcoYQZqS5PS0OZx+YJmOhlgCSSbALF1P74=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2704:: with SMTP id s4mr2858833uao.141.1597461607972; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1307140725.3423419.1595923900561@ss002890> <44EA00AA-E9D9-4173-9F34-219752DACA5D@gredler.at> <1419364510.2875.1596208917648@ss002890> <MW3PR11MB4570F20CFE2C0E46C8D4B2DEC1400@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <1d8fb113-41c8-46cc-bfa3-54c04d406142@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <1d8fb113-41c8-46cc-bfa3-54c04d406142@Spark>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:19:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3SFCA1yoFv_3hQOpFJ7jouQnO=YAfvdN74DBH3Svnjcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, "Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, "hannes@gredler.at" <hannes@gredler.at>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af83ad05ace2035e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/UZLG6zBYIF7RGIGZXREjKeMJmTI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:20:12 -0000
I agree with Kethan and Jeff. This draft is extending IPFIX defined in RFC 7011 7012 to support SR segments over IP export. Since SR-MPLS reuses the MPLS data plane, why would the existing IPFIX RFCs also not support SR-MPLS without having to dig into IGP control plane extensions as from an IPFIX perspective the MPLS data plane is still the same and using the same 4 byte MPLS shim used by LDP. Gyan On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In general, I agree with what Ketan said, what’s important - it is the > value that is being used in forwarding, even if multiple control plane > entries exist, think about IGP migrations, or LDP to SR, where more than 1 > protocol could be distributing the labels/SIDs.. I’m not sure the FIB is > the right place to collect this data though, since most of meta-data has > already been lost (flattened FIB structures often contain bare minimum) and > really heavily depends on the implementation. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2020, 10:36 AM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant= > 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, wrote: > > > > > > > < also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs > > > > > > > Hi Thomas/All, > > > > > > I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective. > > > > > > What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was > signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS – what matters and is > more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly any deployments would be > running multiple protocols and learning the same prefix from different > IGPs. IPFIX may be picking this information from a FIB in some > implementation where the protocol does not matter and this information is > not available therein. > > > > > > On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and IGP – > what would we use/show? > > > > > > I would recommend using SR Prefix SID, SR Adjacency SID, SR Binding SID, > SR BGP Peering SID and so on … for the MPLS Label Type. > > > > > > This also takes away the need for the second table that is being proposed > to a large extent. For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in > some cases not possible to different between Prefix and Node and Anycast > SID. Many of these types are control plane elements and we can be sure more > get added. Is there really much value in differentiation between say an > Adjacency SID and LAN Adjacency SID? > > > > > > Could we evaluate the implementation overhead and complexity of this level > of categorization/information in IPFIX against their value in flow analysis > to perhaps consider a middle ground? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of* Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com > > > *Sent:* 31 July 2020 20:52 > > > *To:* hannes@gredler.at > > > *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. Yes, makes completely sense. Will take it > for the next update... > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:31 AM > > > *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> > > > *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type > > > > > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one comment/suggestion to Paragraph 4 (IANA Considerations). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please add also a code point for BGP Prefix-SID - it’s quite popular in DC > deployments. > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8669 > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8669&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801837133&sdata=NxcbyIGgKrjPmh5OZ5muKulfmzuM%2FlPvGo76WzrHpBM%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /hannes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28.07.2020, at 10:11, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear lsr, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presented the following draft > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow > Information Export (IPFIX) > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04 > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=FhF3AgFGrHvqAYQ7Ec73TpqcQkeHzE9ZOMFGC8cuuDg%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=QZYs1ZXZuBy5cFfvXmrLnu00%2FQF0TiJbBgWHC%2Ffteic%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and today at OPSAWG where I call for adoption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This draft adds additional segment routing code points for in the IANA > IPFIX registry for IS-IS, OPSFv2 and OPSF v3 and segment routing SID types > to gain further insights into the MPLS-SR forwarding-plane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been asked to not only gather feedback from spring and opsawg but > also from lsr and mpls working groups since these code points are related > to link state routing protocols and mpls data plane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am looking forward to your feedback and input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > > > > Thomas Graf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=Twb%2F%2BDFnQxElkufzSIVWszZ54cphIssBgO2vawPRYT8%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > spring mailing list > > > spring@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Thomas.Graf
- Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-labe… Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)