Re: [Lsr] SRLG usage in the IGP Flexible Algorithm draft

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 04 May 2020 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 87DF43A00C1; Mon, 4 May 2020 01:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BITCOIN_SPAM_02=0.436, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_BTC_ID=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no 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 s8xmcuxHJWN9; Mon, 4 May 2020 01:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1670A3A00B2; Mon, 4 May 2020 01:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8582; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1588579559; x=1589789159; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tkDcIcY3v07+KkUo5cLvBEIVaLtLnVciXcC32iS+scM=; b=kWuXHLAxYzhR24l75M9HheGi5ZOyMuRUZ08O5lws6EyNKUUL4hzB5STa ipDKE9D8Nu8U8+a9R+yljtzmvgIP+qyYlVC7QhezEJwjZaN58UGxqjFZU ODwAbNTW2Wiywv8GT+HfY9UAjh1wmN1MNCD2ebwU2QFf+H2s6JR/Jv6RF k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,351,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="25874766"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 May 2020 08:05:52 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04485pSv010390; Mon, 4 May 2020 08:05:51 GMT
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "shraddha@juniper.net" <shraddha@juniper.net>, "cfilsfil@cisco.com" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "ketant@cisco.com" <ketant@cisco.com>, "arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com" <arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, Ron Sdayoor <Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com>
References: <AM0PR0302MB3217968E975EDC3B74F091849DAA0@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <bf999a11-86cb-000f-4ede-653e7b063313@cisco.com> <AM0PR0302MB32171A34910751F32C94D6E89DA90@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <aa145505-3885-08f6-907f-a41aec3cd6ba@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 10:05:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0302MB32171A34910751F32C94D6E89DA90@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/gkS1Uk_buzIEjBKk9_KUtjWCOus>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] SRLG usage in the IGP Flexible Algorithm draft
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: Mon, 04 May 2020 08:06:02 -0000

Hi Sasha,

On 03/05/2020 09:46, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> 
> My reading of your response is as following:
> 
> There are two different ways in which SRLG information can be used with 
> Flexible Algorithms:
> 
> 1.In a context of a single Flexible Algorithm, it can be used for 
> computation of backup paths (e.g., as described in the TI-LFA draft). 
> This usage does not require association of any specific SRLG with the 
> given Flexible Algorithm.
> 
> 2.In the context of multiple Flexible Algorithms it can be used for 
> creating disjoint sets of paths by pruning the links belonging to a 
> specific SRLG from the topology on which a specific Flexible Algorithm 
> computes its paths. This usage:
> 
> a.Extends the definition of the topology used by a given Flexible 
> Algorithm that can be defined using Admin groups (a.k.a. affinities)
> 
> b.Facilitates usage of already deployed SRLG configurations where such 
> configuration have been in place
> 
> c.Requires explicit association of a given Flexible Algorithm with a 
> specific set of SRLG as defined in the current Flex Algo draft.
> 
> The two usages mentioned above are strictly orthogonal.

yes, above is exactly right

> 
> If the understanding above is correct, it makes to me sense to add the 
> corresponding clarifying text to the draft.

sure, I will add it in a next version.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sasha
> 
> Office: +972-39266302
> 
> Cell:      +972-549266302
> 
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:57 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>om>; 
> shraddha@juniper.net; cfilsfil@cisco.com; ketant@cisco.com; 
> arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
> <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>om>; Ron Sdayoor <Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com>
> Subject: Re: SRLG usage in the IGP Flexible Algorithm draft
> 
> Alexander,
> 
> On 30/04/2020 17:21, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> 
>  > Hi all,
> 
>  >
> 
>  > I have a question about the proposed usage of SRLG in the IGP Flexible
> 
>  > Algorithm 
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Wn8dBNRoEXXTU1kJz6RrsR6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07> 
> draft.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > This usage is defined Section 12 of the draft with the reference to
> 
>  > the SRLG exclude rule as following:
> 
>  >
> 
>  >
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        2.  Check if any exclude SRLG rule is part of the
> 
>  > Flex-Algorithm
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if the link is
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        part of any SRLG that is also part of the SRLG exclude rule.
> 
>  > If
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        the link is part of such SRLG, the link MUST be pruned from the
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        computation.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > This looks effectively undistinguishable from the usage of the exclude
> 
>  > Admin groups rule as described in the same Section 12 of the draft:
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        1.  Check if any exclude rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if any color
> 
>  > that
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        is part of the exclude rule is also set on the link.  If such a
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the computation.
> 
>  >
> 
>  >  From my POV, with such a definition, there is no need in the
> 
>  > dedicated “Exclude SRLG” rule as part of the specification of the
> 
>  > Flexible Algorithm, since such the SRLG Exclude rule can be replaced
> 
>  > with a matching Exclude All rule  using Admin groups.
> 
> there is one very important point. Maintaining the affinities is 
> operationally complex. Some networks have already deployed SRLGs. If 
> SRLG exclude with flex-algo gives people what they want, asking them to 
> deploy affinities would be redundant. That's the main point.
> 
> Simple use case:
> 
> I have two SRLGs in the network. For some specific traffic I want to 
> send the data via two independent streams. I want to avoid single SRLG 
> failure to affect both streams. I define two flex-algos, each one 
> excluding one SRLG. No need to define extra affinities. This is btw not 
> an academical example, this has been requested by real users.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > I also think that such a usage of SRLG does not fit the needs of the
> 
>  > TI-LFA
> 
>  > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3GhKPQ2JAgebW7vLidLjXRx6H2?u=https%3A%
> 
>  > 2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-0
> 
>  > 3> draft that considers an SRLG as a resource that fails when any of
> 
>  > the links/nodes comprising it fails. E.g., it says in Section 2:
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     The Point of Local Repair (PLR), S, needs to find a node Q (a
> 
>  > repair
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     node) that is capable of safely forwarding the traffic to a
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     destination D affected by the failure of the protected link L, a
> 
>  > set
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     of links including L (SRLG), or the node F itself.  The PLR also
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     needs to find a way to reach Q without being affected by the
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     convergence state of the nodes over the paths it wants to use to
> 
>  >
> 
>  >     reach Q: the PLR needs a loop-free path to reach Q.
> 
> I see no conflict between the LFA draft and flex-algo one. If you do, 
> please be precise where the conflict is.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > To me this suggests that SRLGs are only relevant when computing backup
> 
>  > paths for specific failures, e.g., an LFA for failure of a link hat
> 
>  > belongs to a specific SRLG must be computed in the topology from which
> 
>  > all the links belonging to the same SRLG are pruned. This
> 
>  > understanding matches RFC 4090 that states in Section 6.2 “Procedures
> 
>  > for Backup Path
> 
>  > Computation”:
> 
> SRLG is a mechanism to express fate share. I see no reason why SRLG 
> could not be used for other than LFA purposes.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Peter
> 
>  >
> 
>  >        - The backup LSP cannot traverse the downstream node and/or
> 
>  > link
> 
>  >
> 
>  >          whose failure is being protected against.  Note that if the
> 
>  > PLR
> 
>  >
> 
>  >          is the penultimate hop, node protection is not possible, and
> 
>  >
> 
>  >          only the downstream link can be avoided. The backup path may
> 
>  > be
> 
>  >
> 
>  >          computed to be SRLG disjoint from the downstream node and/or
> 
>  >
> 
>  >          link being avoided.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > If SRLGs are only relevant for computation of backup paths, it is not
> 
>  > clear to me if they should be part of the definition of a specific
> 
>  > Flexible Algorithm.
> 
>  >
> 
>  > 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.
> ___________________________________________________________________________