Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 04 March 2021 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 560243A0E7B for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:59:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ajQC7SMeXggb for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C79C3A0E6E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [240.0.0.1] (unknown [106.121.128.50]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id B98AE1C014E; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 23:59:11 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-14A6BB24-1EA3-4C5B-B138-F14B508F598A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 23:59:10 +0800
Message-Id: <F1A8C608-19DD-4564-910D-6604894BD551@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <tencent_3C953C8542F9D6D71B80231C6066D5B17208@qq.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <tencent_3C953C8542F9D6D71B80231C6066D5B17208@qq.com>
To: Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZS0kdHUofQh0fHx4aVkpNSk9DTEhOTklLTEhVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS0JITVVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PzI6Phw5Dz8IHwtMPjIOSRVC NFEKCzpVSlVKTUpPQ0xITk5JTk1OVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlKS01VSklKVUpJQ1VOS1lXWQgBWUFJQk1MTDcG
X-HM-Tid: 0a77fdf6e392d993kuwsb98ae1c014e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/r56xNltP9krg8qZsjeDP2jc6NkA>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?WG_Adoption_Poll_for_=E2=80=9CUsing_IS-IS_Multi-?= =?utf-8?q?Topology_=28MT=29_for_Segment_Routing_based_Virtual_Transport_N?= =?utf-8?q?etwork=E2=80=9D_-_draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03?=
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 15:59:23 -0000

Hi,Les:

My understanding is that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn/ proposed the necessary IGP extensions to accomplish more abundant VTN function, while this adopting draft described how to utilize the existing MT mechanism to achieve the basic VTN function.
And based on the above differences, the corresponding part of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-05#section-3.1 should be removed and kept only in the current information draft because it doesn’t need protocol extension.

Adopting this document can certainly accelerate the deployment of MT/SR based VTN, using the existing tools invented by IETF. 

This document just tell the reader how to achieve the above goal.
Then I support its adoption.


Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Mar 4, 2021, at 21:04, Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, Les,
>  
> Thanks for the review of this document.
>  
> As the current document type is informational, it does not introduce new TLV to IS-IS. While it describes the mechanisms of using existing TLVs to distribute the information of SR based VTNs, which can have customized topology and a set of dedicated network resources. It also describes the forwarding behaviors based on the SIDs and the resources allocated to each VTN.
>  
> IS-IS MT as defined in RFC 5120 provides the mechanisms to build multiple logical topologies and perform independent path computation for each topology. RFC 5120 mentions that the TE attributes TLVs can be inherited by the MT TLVs “if traffic engineering or some other applications are being applied per topology level later”. While it does not specify what the topology-specific TE attributes mean, and how traffic in different topologies are forwarded on a shared outgoing interface. These are described in section 3 and section 4 of this document.
>  
> RFC8667 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions defines the encoding of SR SIDs/SRv6 Locators in IS-IS, while the usage of the topology-specific SIDs and Locators are not specified, especially when the SIDs are associated with different set of network resources.
>  
> Section 5 gives the analysis about the scalability of this mechanism, and talks about a case where two VTNs have the same logical topology, but with different set of resources.
>  
> IMO the value of this document is that it provides an option to build SR VTNs with no IS-IS protocol extensions, which could be useful for some network scenarios.
>  
> Best regards,
> Chongfeng
> 
> chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com
>  
> 发件人: Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)
> 发送时间: 2021-03-04 11:52
> 收件人: Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
> I oppose WG adoption for this draft.
>  
> I note that the authors – following significant comments received on V0 - have removed much of the material that was considered confusing and/or inappropriate – notably discussion of L2 bundle link members.
> I also note the draft has moved from Standards track to Informational track.
>  
> Let’s consider what content remains (ignoring boilerplate sections):
>  
> Section 2 notes that MT TLVs (RFC 5120) can support:
>    o Topology specific SR-MPLS SIDs (defined in RFC 8667)
>    o Topology specific SRv6 Locators and SIDs (defined in draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions)
>  
> Section 3 notes that MT TLVs can also support link attribute advertisements (defined in RFC 5305 and RFC 8570)
>  
> Also note that the IANA registries:
>  
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-25-141-222-223 and
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-135-235-236-237
>  
> also clearly document what is discussed in Sections 2 and 3.
>  
> Section 4 notes that topology specific forwarding entries can be installed in the forwarding plane based on topology specific routing calculations – something which was discussed in RFC 5120.
>  
> Section 5 notes that two different MTIDs could operate on the same physical topology - something clearly discussed in RFC 5120.
>  
> All of this adds nothing new to our understanding of the protocol. The only “new” content is the statement that VTNs could map to MTIDs.
> But the substance of VTN and how it might be used is better discussed in a number of other drafts including:
>  
>    draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
>    draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
>    draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn
>  
> The last draft is most notable because it proposes new IGP protocol encodings in support of VTN. Whether the encodings in that draft are accepted as currently defined or evolve to something different – it would be the authoritative draft on VTN IGP extensions.
>  
> The end result is that there is no meaningful content in draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt. What it states is either already stated in existing RFCs or will be stated authoritatively in whatever draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn  evolves to (if indeed this work on VTNs is adopted by the WG).
>  
> Let’s please not waste WG time on this draft.
>  
>    Les
>  
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2021 3:28 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
>  
> This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN segmentation. The authors have asked for WG adoption. 
>  
> This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF next week. Please register your support or objection on this list prior to the end of the adoption poll on 3/24/2020.
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr