Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 02 October 2020 17:41 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 B01373A165C for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 s74Qr8T9-Pg5 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x930.google.com (mail-ua1-x930.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]) (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 DAA163A11F3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x930.google.com with SMTP id q26so600407uaa.12 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:41:53 -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=HEXEQfGznsKiNpZtnZESIy7StORgb3Z2mUzCtnDqTbA=; b=BOAakEirblnsqvLtSFUH3wPlqVe8xFEh8u8cnnOnDUEAPfVrW11dRN2U1aG4SisLQg DL7Tcuc+wA7149qEaOLIOJC2YeR7gON+woBU4kX4Y0b4IsaHshifE6ksIu05K/zIUUgv dMguNXxeJzpccj/+ZruEtdLdsVrXyt12iZrIYmcPmaR6bE51180em7zQrAnVGc6kcRWn gk2SuMjzxyWIp0d8nKyrjZ3Bh6bQSQDXg+5yFOUCDnsPxBQEl0ZEyfvblCPMozigM3h9 zHOvJECX3iKJqWPcu8OZXgDFHPzvnpy6FTDRCGt5weZD0NDdZGGXIAv/tA67We7xj4Rz K6MQ==
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=HEXEQfGznsKiNpZtnZESIy7StORgb3Z2mUzCtnDqTbA=; b=K+jT30VQFJGqrRc4lVlCr+owHf8xwT0jzvRizKj/mJI7Vqk3IOM1sFxH1LHAxvUtLv M6IJhzTCK28A/FWmn+d6Q8gIe6X1YBFQq6fiuhc8n3Mb3TwbY9Pa/vfiparN1b+5k1iq MXfyHVAnAEu8Bv19BtLS7lMu74J+YZ9BRt4XzxtWIvaUys2grHQAxN9baBqoRME8wwH0 umwVLAG8HSoBmKGlkpdxyhW4paTk/6/jMQDQsHrkU2RkH9khM/yD+pRqBDvCyf56ewRX ZKngp6lZPQkOr5TbGdZRuxiDM5id15JbO5BMPha41SmIKN3azHawdLIkIc0QmxG69rHq b8Ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+IM3huBq/hlsPjiv3YCopVpivZFoophoLahIz8ggIPAck0rWE N9i0JkIW8RpD/0Oewi+2DV78xKk4L9LilBeHXNo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAA2eXyVeztE3fTN3DlAZkp5Crz+MLM/7UIVBvhTYyhdOCGH45IMl0dYHMtjfGMaWm+aBP29tkB7o8wBneUms=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4e25:: with SMTP id g37mr1964927uah.106.1601660512677; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160138654056.12980.329207214151594381@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM6PR05MB63482DBC001DD56BEF6F7311AE320@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAKz0y8w5VOf_=baG6UCP8Q9s=VLM2ghT2jhiF5FZNN4JXB23eA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB63485389C261CA2E0C08DE50AE330@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <0f85212d-fac7-47ea-a608-4f53061cbf02@Spark> <DM6PR05MB63480E863599BBC810BF334AAE300@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2+jhjAfxq5FzaukdhCOqXvGCkv75xYWcStN=SCrpni4Q@mail.gmail.com> <f4fdff8b-fe11-cb75-3cd7-7766baedf730@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <f4fdff8b-fe11-cb75-3cd7-7766baedf730@cisco.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:41:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV18Ar2V=Boh8wEcdLQjszTQ+GWYBHw2vuWzRnGRHERYqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e8b62605b0b3a5ec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/gNNTGKqDZCkPZTE6djLZOn7H7EE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.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: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:41:56 -0000

Thanks Peter!

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:42 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
>
>
> On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> > All,
>
> >
>
> > With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it applies to
>
> > both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain different sets
>
> > of nodes or segments of the network running different algorithms.
>
>
>
> absolutely.


   Gyan> Great.  As was noted on the thread that with SR-MPLS you can have
multiple labels and each label bound to a different algorithm for a service
prefix, however that is not possible with SRv6 as it’s a 1-1 binding
destination prefix to SRv6 sid.  With SRv6 standard longest prefix matching
 can you  also have different sets of nodes running different algorithms
within the same domain.  SRv6 has the advantage of LPM but SR-MPLS does
seem to have an advantage of being able to have multiple algorithms tied to
a label bound to the same FEC.  That does seem to be an advantageous
feature with SR-MPLS - MPLS data plane use of flex algo as compare to SRv6.

>
>
>
> > From
>
> > both drafts it sounds like all nodes have to agree on same algorithm
>
> > similar to concept of metric and reference bandwidth all have to have
>
> > the same style metric and play to the same sheet of music.
>
>
>
> all participating nodes need to agree on the definition of the flex-algo
>
> and advertise the participation. That's it.
>

    Gyan> Trying to picture how it would work if you had let’s say all
nodes in a single IGP domain or MT instance running let’s say 2 different
algorithms simultaneously.  Would it be like 2 different routing overlay
IGP instances or ISIS MT instance or ospf process.  Also would that work
with just SR-MPLS or would that also work with SRv6?  In the case where you
have groups of nodes running a different algorithm the adjacent border
nodes between the groupings would end up running multiple  algorithms.  So
it can work and not issue with routing loops or sub optimal routing.

>
>
>
> > If there was
>
> > a way to use multiple algorithms simultaneously based on SFC or services
>
> > and instantiation of specific algorithm based on service to be
>
> > rendered.  Doing so without causing a routing loop or sub optimal
>
> > routing.
>
>
>
> you can certainly use multiple algorithms simultaneously and use algo
>
> specific paths to forward specific traffic over it. How that is done
>
> from the forwarding perspective depends in which forwarding plane you
>
> use. Flex-algo control plane is independent of the forwarding plane.
>
> Gyan> Is there a flex algo use case draft?
>
>
>
> >I thought with flex algo that there exists a feature that on
>
> > each hop there is a way to specify which algo to use hop by hop similar
>
> > to a hop by hop policy based routing.
>
>
>
> no, there is no hop-by-hop classification, that is problematic and does
>
> not scale for high speeds. Classification is done at the ingress only.
>
> Gyan>  Is the classification of interesting traffic base on QOS marking on
> ingress to map to a specific flex algo for a particular service?
>
> thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD