Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Wed, 03 August 2016 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F324112D1AA; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 01:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 pAvWgIAGq2qk; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 01:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A23EF12B074; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 01:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id COU72807; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:54:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:54:16 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:54:07 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
Thread-Index: AQHRkBgULgoheUag70W81YSz/dG9VqA3nkqQ
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:54:07 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D57DE74@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D538182@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D538182@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.57A1B13B.0035, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 43e7d5472f6d6bcf2e537bbc364b06bf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/QdU7lP1sv-JxrrZuRRk8mTN2zj0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:54:23 -0000

Hi MPLS WG and SPRING WG,

I have been told by many people that connecting MPLS segment routing (SR) islands/nodes over IP as described in (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05) is very useful for the incremental deployment of MPLS SR. However, the remote label distribution peer mode for MPLS SR (which is used for connecting MPLS SR islands/nodes) conflicts with RFC3031 (see Section 3.22. Lack of Outgoing Label). I discussed with Bruno (SPRPING WG co-chair) offline about the next step of this draft at IETF96. he suggested that it'd better to update RFC3031 so as to take the remote label distribution peer mode for MPLS SR into account. I would like to hear more suggestions and comments from MPLS and SPRING WGs on the necessity of RFC3031bis and the best way to standardize the remote label distribution peer mode for MPLS SR. 

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:37 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of
> draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> According to suggestions from SPRING co-chairs, I would clarify the intention of
> this draft
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05) as
> follows.
> 
> If I understood the current MPLS-SR specification
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls) correctly,
> the IGP next-hop for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC (i.e., node segment prefix) is
> taken as the next-hop of the received MPLS packet belonging to that FEC. When
> the IGP next-hop for that FEC is a non-MPLS node, the outgoing label for that
> FEC is lacked. As a result, the received MPLS packet belonging to that FEC would
> be dropped BY DEFAULT according to the following specification as quoted from
> RFC3031:
> 
> "3.22. Lack of Outgoing Label
>    When a labeled packet is traveling along an LSP, it may occasionally
>    happen that it reaches an LSR at which the ILM does not map the
>    packet's incoming label into an NHLFE, even though the incoming label
>    is itself valid.  This can happen due to transient conditions, or due
>    to an error at the LSR which should be the packet's next hop.
>    It is tempting in such cases to strip off the label stack and attempt
>    to forward the packet further via conventional forwarding, based on
>    its network layer header.  However, in general this is not a safe
>    procedure:
>       -  If the packet has been following an explicitly routed LSP, this
>          could result in a loop.
>       -  The packet's network header may not contain enough information
>          to enable this particular LSR to forward it correctly.
>    Unless it can be determined (through some means outside the scope of
>    this document) that neither of these situations obtains, the only
>    safe procedure is to discard the packet."
> 
> In the T-LDP or L-BGP case, the next-hop for the MPLS packet belong to a given
> prefix FEC is not the IGP next-hop of that FEC anymore. For instance, in the
> T-LDP case, the next-hop is the T-LDP peer, and in the L-BGP case, the next-hop is
> the L-BGP peer. As a result, if T-LDP peers or L-BGP peers are not directly
> connected and are separated by an IP network, the LSP signaled by T-LDP or
> L-BGP could be transported over that IP network.
> 
> The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label for a given
> /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP next-hop of that FEC
> or the originator of that FEC due to the IGP flooding property. In the former case,
> the IGP next-hop for a given FEC is taken as the next-hop of the received MPLS
> packet belonging to that FEC; in the latter case, the originator of that FEC is taken
> as the next-hop of the MPLS packet belonging to that FEC. The former case is
> straightforward to understand and has been described in the current MPLS-SR
> draft. the latter case is a bit hard to understand and has not been described in
> the current MPLS-SR drafts. In fact, the latter case belongs to the "remote label
> distribution peer" case as defined in RFC3031, see below:
> 
> "When two LSRs are IGP neighbors, we will refer to them as "local
>       label distribution peers".  When two LSRs may be label distribution
>       peers, but are not IGP neighbors, we will refer to them as "remote
>       label distribution peers."
> 
> In a word, this draft
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05)
> describes the remote label distribution peer mode which is useful for
> incremental deployment purpose.
> 
> I would like to hear from SPRING and MPLS WGs whether the remote label
> distribution peer mode is valid for MPLS-SR and whether we need a draft to
> describe the remote label distribution peer mode for MPLS-SR.
> 
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls