Re: [Lsvr] Need clarification on IGP-Metric TLV for LS Link Attributes in BGP-SPF deployments

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 21 March 2020 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF533A08CD; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 Jm1fMG86Sw7n; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (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 CC0D23A13AA; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id n25so9546879eds.10; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:00:12 -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=FO+LCclGTylj6iZY2oQsCZg+hheMTC8dhJYJ0inUobc=; b=svZSYJAiGU0HiGIo1eRm5CxFSpJ2QolMNYZno3ne61fVZTygP8b2DpFO5RlTo4sEn8 CHMCmaJgac+9UGKygXQuF40O2/AQuMXyl3mkbU0FXyKWuCSwjZ9oBe89Rd42TS5WtKYd xAs/CpLy2ccVkVzTG8DSsfVlG+ZWP8lB8JJem0W08tGW0IReyexw/QvTnjmfSqaTDyYi wz/n1CQYG33lXhjWeEbII9zzRLBZNTK8dR1bCP8EsACM8N5mG2KsWgcj1AU6utcef59M JRoYMPcgVBE+t+AzKjwEyeYq2HLLpAEYM5C7tuQtREB0GvVTyCWEGNL+9RtvBwe7ShZJ xgGw==
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=FO+LCclGTylj6iZY2oQsCZg+hheMTC8dhJYJ0inUobc=; b=Aw3tsJV67EKSt5UDXJg8yVLUaP9n9vhXIaYcfHIHxh3iG4HRQZZvGgpTsx1/DKhZWx PqkcborLjJLpSus2Ys4+nonHNsJh/olN6WpSmjuBUEfuvogRbsNinQykWzt98lyreK1X RTe0Tp+RS0YaZBXkt4yQKUvsg5EQMBuEfgikP/Iy295LMAurftehbv7yaw7XZR4VSvjy RuHGXIcBmbtWTXx8fi/6rJ7VJ4U7xU1rwyNm/N9ARH1OVWv1l8N4MrQHXf54/LB361It W6AYYY3x9uc1euc10EkUFKqVRUksUQ6FU6JhoVPlER7gd22F7UXUn0xpcIFL3TM9Zsoc 4kbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3iqjXmIAgadmftLrR8JhrfiWr3yWEwWS8Jm/EGJeANc4VVF+qa vcFBF3PTE4yXAx/orz/6S8U47k0hog+nshtjZWw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtfeLyI6TJObTuFazA+eq8jo0VpGOfLbZqiMLWtpKhnMPfMxGtkgvW5PHE7Tdl7TFl9zhbRScaerwJTWFKKjd8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1c0c:: with SMTP id ck12mr13060788edb.145.1584795611220; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEFuwkh=zmq_W_DD_MLePtc2pAZY7T1aENbbE01_cU588ZxDxQ@mail.gmail.com> <7DFD0D7F-65FC-4032-BCD2-7A2A1CA44512@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DFD0D7F-65FC-4032-BCD2-7A2A1CA44512@cisco.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:30:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkjL2-LkLeLv1UYS4ZCcjEZF5RHtiH=sD=hqtrqMVUAacg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf@ietf.org>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072cf3c05a15cfb05"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/XCFP24X_soWG_TwV2_JNY-NFxyg>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Need clarification on IGP-Metric TLV for LS Link Attributes in BGP-SPF deployments
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:00:15 -0000

Hi Acee,

My personal preference will be having it as a 4-byte metric due to ease of
implementation as well as encoding/decoding efficiency due word-size
alignment. It may not be a big thing but encoding/decoding a 3-byte value
to/from byte stream is few more CPU instructions than just a 4-byte read
from a memory address.

Thanks
-Pushpasis

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:10 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Pushpasis,
>
> I think for BGP-LS SPF we should always use 3 octet metrics. This will
> offer the most flexibility w/o redefining the TLV. If you agree, I will
> update the SPF draft to state this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, March 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM
> *To: *"draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf@ietf.org
> >
> *Cc: *"lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Need clarification on IGP-Metric TLV for LS Link Attributes in
> BGP-SPF deployments
> *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> *Resent-To: *Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>,
> Shawn Zandi <szandi@linkedin.com>, Wim Henderickx <
> wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, March 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM
>
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> I need a small clarification on how the Link IGP-Metric TLV (type 1095)
> for the links originated by an BGP-SPF speaker look like. My doubt is
> specifically on what would be the length of the metric value. For example,
> following is the excerpt from RFC7752 section 3.3.2.4 which specifies the
> length to be 1, 2 or 3 bytes for ISIS narrow-metrics, OSPF and ISIS
> wide-metrics.
>
>
>
> 3.3.2.4.  IGP Metric TLV
>
>
>
>    The IGP Metric TLV carries the metric for this link.  The length of
>
>    this TLV is variable, depending on the metric width of the underlying
>
>    protocol.  IS-IS small metrics have a length of 1 octet (the two most
>
>    significant bits are ignored).  OSPF link metrics have a length of 2
>
>    octets.  IS-IS wide metrics have a length of 3 octets.
>
>
>
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |              Type             |             Length            |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      //      IGP Link Metric (variable length)      //
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
>                      Figure 21: IGP Metric TLV Format
>
>
>
> What should be the length of the metric field when the origin is a BGP-SPF
> speaker?
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your clarification on this. Also it will be appreciated
> a lot if a sentence or two can be added to the draft clarifying the above
> in the next version.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> -Pushpasis
>
>
>