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

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 5540E131028; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.795, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 AliI7eg99HDz; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com [85.158.142.3]) (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 7DD28130FBE; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.142.101] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-3.bemta.az-a.eu-central-1.aws.symcld.net id 11/3A-15701-A9BF92B5; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:00:42 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1WTe0hTURzHO/cx78rFbVr+GqtoJWFta+sBK3r 9USRFURARWuS13dxiu8ruVioFFkGhSQ8W2SxmNSrt6aPIMpSB+CgrepH5CPNRGr195Czp3h3t cf44fM7v+/ud3/cczmFI9UeFhuHT3bxL4Bw6xVhqQdyPmQbfUFyiafh2lKXp7HnKcvNncYSlt uMybal5MoRWUPHeoWI6PhAYJDYQCbRdSE5NT6JtgaZSMs1fhdILmi8RWej5NZSNxjIUe56EvO q34YWaPUlAMM9H4EU7gjufW6hspGQU7FIoudKiyEYME83Ogwvv5shhku1DUHo0XuYodg3cCLX TMkeza8HbVxuBeTE0V7QiuZRiYyF0PFEOq9gk+F7WNdLKh+De+85wrZJdBS8P9SGZETsJBuqv ErhXDLzu8IcZWBYCFY9JzBOhu32YxvnJ8KbzHMLx6ZDXeiYC8xR46s8JHxLY2wT03i8fSTJDT WElKZsDdh3UfE3AOAPK3m/D6Q0Irufnj/TVQ97+oyN9U6H5TJcCc650V7+2Y54KRbltFC6uJG HwU4DGghZ6X7eQWChXwIsDBegYMvj+ORxmAV5+ukT7wrc0AepOd1A4roeCe98UmOfAxXMfyFF +WNVO/BsvQBFFyJLssqfY3E7O7jCYTSaD2TzfYDLMNxm5TANn5D2GHbzgdnGSaOT2iEYxw7nD YTUKvLsESQ9tjDTuoPyQNYgmM4RuoqqzNS5RPT451Zph40TbdpfHwYtBpGUYHajWhCRtgotP4 dN32h3Sax2VgYnURavoQUlWiWmcU7SnYKkeLWeCn71HSOZReA5+kefhxspcUk0JqQKviVG1ym WsXGbzCH82Hf0FT9EUTZQKSTbVkWm8y2l3/6/3oBgG6aJUVtlbpF1w/+ndI9kiJFtlmbNkW27 ur6TJQpm75mmbd2k/3Gp81j1157jq7LR9nvuO6V39SQs3af1tJ5Uaj9fZ4+je3VDeuNfy4MDW q96mx3WJhXdLlw4PxKrbNP7rPyv0MTn9D0Wlfv2444sOvrKrlXOXfNm4MnQX9Rw+MW3L1qTY2 R8bVldPXlbya3PtohWnrMoZm6urcrL09XPrdJRo48yzSZfI/QYWpMYHAAQAAA==
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-39.tower-226.messagelabs.com!1529478038!953815!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.41.248.36]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.9.15; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 5321 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2018 07:00:41 -0000
Received: from us-west-2a.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.41.248.36) by server-39.tower-226.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 20 Jun 2018 07:00:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DSl53ByNtvU/mfEAlZhJSu3M6sOd3m169tSO5Z0Sx7I=; b=irVpFUgYCA1mMMQJNa8Tym2hG8YNS2657WFMbugBQVLJriA8ONENW5LHvlxTcPntWtml1PFRD7E7nGBhwqs34Yze8hzYumgP6XOzgKAauEeP1hz3JoCuuDmhCN5/hfSrHk2k2Vvq1jzpcLnpEKKu3Y3AD7hu5sCtZwExroVNeMg=
Received: from DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.226.155) by DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.226.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.863.16; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:00:37 +0000
Received: from DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d461:c56e:7404:d5b1]) by DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d461:c56e:7404:d5b1%6]) with mapi id 15.20.0863.016; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:00:36 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS
Thread-Index: AdQH14DTIRv7S0/NS+eaMKnMz1F/KgALuKCwABd23JA=
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:00:36 +0000
Message-ID: <DB5PR0301MB1909B7D2D61CF46D0230A3649D770@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909570F9D2830F933FD1B3D9D700@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7aaaddfdb34049b2961cdb44b1c1eb86@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7aaaddfdb34049b2961cdb44b1c1eb86@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5PR0301MB1909; 7:QUKv65BiLDwHJxngjuMpO4a1BVikkS6yCLi9LJwnHbEW+WZUzcu0o3U+uJTSps+D4qNHpaC/bgwEqeQw2bHgKYCXSqwvYCejsK87mElbNk7wRjbqVm3xUJvBXC5eY2AVMtyo/bdoqO+6RBH3fm/2CRbEZ9okIrInd0Rk4jnvMcgHTSjikdfhA+aB6vsfAq8ky9KCmDqtLug5KtBZ/CZdRge/33YKgxQXyRafw6gXjzu8k+XSpPD3QpJ2h+OKvvMN
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f4412760-1481-4285-f2a1-08d5d67b868b
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(711020)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1909;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB5PR0301MB1909:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB5PR0301MB190961FB4B4F4296CA07A45A9D770@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(158342451672863)(120809045254105)(95692535739014)(21748063052155)(279101305709854);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1909; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1909;
x-forefront-prvs: 070912876F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(39380400002)(346002)(396003)(53754006)(199004)(189003)(252514010)(51874003)(72206003)(99286004)(6436002)(105586002)(3660700001)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(54906003)(3280700002)(68736007)(106356001)(8676002)(53936002)(54896002)(6306002)(229853002)(9686003)(66066001)(14454004)(5660300001)(236005)(55016002)(4326008)(478600001)(6246003)(316002)(74316002)(486006)(97736004)(2900100001)(7696005)(86362001)(59450400001)(76176011)(26005)(186003)(6116002)(6916009)(2906002)(5890100001)(53546011)(6506007)(446003)(3846002)(5250100002)(790700001)(11346002)(7736002)(476003)(25786009)(33656002)(606006)(102836004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1909; H:DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: e9N3cKTYf76c6jYA8JRp9TBN7j1Z6acgQ167597UyAtxd/k5CWRdfvGmSpF0Cq75AQA6N7bxFf7QORUQg4X0yNsJGJHEG47r779RTd0wp6v9DChUoJPxUinK5Zd1yVPIXeiGVG7JlTSVOkvX+glHc8bZbHxIqfuhT0In1724Eqcu9ddKRPuWAYxaTL1RVvdGIxpLFC14yRAisp3Qlrwg1pYvTcChAef90QxljVAKuC81WZEFUg+YLNKTKk97TiHVrsWrDGh8m38HnKSGWRu5eF7GmAoKBBTJFn2XFbmY69epYpDuuw9TcChKcQpzc2LdeNF3bDvNZz4ZnaKl0+ryyw==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB5PR0301MB1909B7D2D61CF46D0230A3649D770DB5PR0301MB1909_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f4412760-1481-4285-f2a1-08d5d67b868b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Jun 2018 07:00:36.8482 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR0301MB1909
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/a0eLwHk4INfUDVEqRrMlUxCBGtA>
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:00:49 -0000

Les,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
The proposed text looks fine to me.

Regards,
Sasha

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

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:00 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>om>; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org
Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>om>; spring@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS

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<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:27 AM
To: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org>
Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com<mailto:Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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.
___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________________________________________