Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 23 September 2020 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 E31F83A153F for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 3XbTzWaliMnI for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 48D8F3A153D for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BxXw30LBBz6GQtM for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1600900291; bh=q1nNkKbEZh2BMEf63PUIO0X9SY0BPZTWo9n+QG4UTSE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ROauluEJYP/ju78Z3SDvdx8ZdcGUTLWd6B9TzH2fbISps6OMMdIcy3iZRuxqUED93 O5dSOmok5l/XP/YgypeJmfDiy6M+q1rHH3vglSy8jHXHj3MX8kNP67IIF7XyCgqWyv 9RKNQ/LkPyOoEF0FEVMznFreIQP/vgcC1L0e3IGA=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Kz3I5vgiu0x5>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BxXw24MFKz6GHf7 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: lsr@ietf.org
References: <160089362905.18505.1337918393869303045@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <97d0c988-d984-489c-8f48-907647ee1204@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 18:31:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160089362905.18505.1337918393869303045@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/g40a3hp4wJEk_4mzbtY0DbjBNCg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt
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, 23 Sep 2020 22:31:33 -0000

The announcement prompted me to look again and think about an 
interaction between this and the network programming draft.  To be 
clear, I am NOT objecting to either this or the network programming 
draft.  I am just wondering what I am missing.

The NP draft, and the advertisement mechanism allows a router to 
advertise the number of bits for the ARG portion of a SID.

Q1: The point presumably is to avoid needing to advertise each of the 
individual values?

An example of this is, I think, and ARG for the table selection where 
the ARG is the table number for the packet to be looked up in?

Q2: If so, how does the head end know what table number corresponds to 
what meaning?    If this requires a separate advertisement there seems 
to be no savings.  if this requires out-of-band knowledge then we seem 
to have lost the benefit of advertising all of this in the routing protocol.

I suspect I am simply missing a piece.  can someone explain please?

Thank you,
Joel

On 9/23/2020 4:40 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>          Title           : IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
>          Authors         : Peter Psenak
>                            Clarence Filsfils
>                            Ahmed Bashandy
>                            Bruno Decraene
>                            Zhibo Hu
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt
> 	Pages           : 25
> 	Date            : 2020-09-23
> 
> Abstract:
>     Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
>     paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
>     "segments".  Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an
>     MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane.  This draft describes
>     the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6
>     data plane.
> 
>