Re: [Lsr] A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 91124130EC6; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 6DNKvnV8xM_f; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82593130E6E; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=55376; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1529438385; x=1530647985; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c5Cv+Kh5FnxB67NL5pNxQKmPRZm3WtAdaaGzlnZ9c0M=; b=BpEnFCeiNgPDM5OanKSyW+B37vZ9Czv5QzLpYlF6TGhUs9oigvEkoMq6 BwJgrT9qSbG/YOZEIwI98m7GU8IT+EwBSPA3om5wW7bvq6KNtaaIiEzeR bJG4T6dEOEZEoiOPrauNTXKeK6NgfogFRRin7Ate8FbmNpBZIjAiqQfee I=;
X-Files: Diff draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt - draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-18.txt.htm : 23515
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DkAABWXylb/5NdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJTSC5ifygKhU6GJYxTggCHFI1nFIFkCyeBLwGBXoE3AoJ?= =?us-ascii?q?uITQYAQIBAQEBAQECbRwMhSgBAQEELToSDgICAQgRAQMBASEBBgcCFBwUAwY?= =?us-ascii?q?IAQEEAQ0FCAaDGIF/D613iEheDwWIT4FUP4EOAYJeLoMICwEBAgEBFoELCAE?= =?us-ascii?q?SAQcCHQcJDwYMAoUcAoc6iQaBCIFehXkJAoNRgipzhGCDN4FHHSSDP4ZqgRS?= =?us-ascii?q?KFYcXAhETAYEkHThhcXAVO4JDCYFoMBeIWYU+bwEBihWBH4EaAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,244,1526342400"; d="htm'217?scan'217,208,217";a="131915417"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2018 19:59:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5JJxhfS004115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:59:43 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:59:43 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:59:43 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org>
CC: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS
Thread-Index: AdQH14DTIRv7S0/NS+eaMKnMz1F/KgALuKCw
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:59:43 +0000
Message-ID: <7aaaddfdb34049b2961cdb44b1c1eb86@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909570F9D2830F933FD1B3D9D700@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR0301MB1909570F9D2830F933FD1B3D9D700@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.161.161]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_7aaaddfdb34049b2961cdb44b1c1eb86XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/YIPZz82KbrWmCKNUQi_kCXKGfPA>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 19 Jun 2018 19:59:50 -0000

Sasha -

Thanx for pointing this out.

Up until V13 of the draft the SID/Label Binding TLV had multiple use cases and there was introductory text in Section 2.4 which described these use cases.
All use cases other than SRMS were removed in V13 (principally the ERO types) as they were not in use and the introductory text was removed.

Support for Mirror SID was restored in V14 (thanx to Chris Bowers) but we never updated the introductory text in Section 2.4 to reflect this.

Attached are proposed diffs to address this gap. Hopefully this will resolve the issue for you.

   Les


From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:27 AM
To: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org
Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>om>; spring@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS

Hi all,
I have a question about Mirror SID as defined in the SR Architecture<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15> draft and its advertisement defined in the IS-IS extensions for SR<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/> draft.

Mirror SID is defined in Section 5.1 of the SR Architecture draft as following:
5.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15#section-5.1>.1>.  IGP Mirroring Context Segment


   One use case for a Binding Segment is to provide support for an IGP
   node to advertise its ability to process traffic originally destined
   to another IGP node, called the Mirrored node and identified by an IP
   address or a Node-SID, provided that a "Mirroring Context" segment be
   inserted in the segment list prior to any service segment local to
   the mirrored node.

   When a given node B wants to provide egress node A protection, it

   advertises a segment identifying node's A context.  Such segment is

   called "Mirror Context Segment" and identified by the Mirror SID.



   The Mirror SID is advertised using the binding segment defined in SR

   IGP protocol extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15#ref-I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions>] .



   In the event of a failure, a point of local repair (PLR) diverting

   traffic from A to B does a PUSH of the Mirror SID on the protected

   traffic.  B, when receiving the traffic with the Mirror SID as the

   active segment, uses that segment and processes underlying segments

   in the context of A.

Please note that these definitions do not mention SR Mapping Server or any such thing.

At the same time, the IS-IS Extensions for SR draft only mentions mirror context in Section 2.4 that says:

2.4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17#section-2.4>.4>.  SID/Label Binding TLV





   The SID/Label Binding TLV MAY be originated by any router in an IS-IS

   domain.



   The SID/Label Binding TLV is used to advertise prefixes to SID/Label

   mappings.  This functionality is called the Segment Routing Mapping

   Server (SRMS).  The behavior of the SRMS is defined in

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop>]p>].
...
2.4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17#section-2.4.1>.1>.  Flags





   Flags: 1 octet field of following flags:



    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |F|M|S|D|A|     |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   where:



      F-Flag: Address Family flag.  If unset, then the Prefix carries an

      IPv4 Prefix.  If set then the Prefix carries an IPv6 Prefix.



      M-Flag: Mirror Context flag.  Set if the advertised SID

      corresponds to a mirrored context.  The use of the M flag is

      described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing>]g>].

...

This seems to imply that mirrored context is related to the SRMS - but, to the best of my understanding, these are completely unrelated.
Please note also that the SR Architecture draft says that the Mirroring Context SID is a segment that identifies the node, and not any prefix. And, of course the SR Architecture draft does not describe usage of any flags.

What (if anything) did I miss?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>


___________________________________________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________________________________________