[mpls] 答复: Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkinganddifference between Path Segment and BSID

<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> Mon, 16 September 2019 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
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 7A844120810; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 43Y14fzET3yq; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAAB012002E; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0ED134F3F334E4D45BE0; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:25:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id E93D5D72EDC0F887F5D6; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:25:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x8G9Pdnn060605; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:25:39 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:25:38 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:25:38 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd5d7f55123630f39f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201909161725385552297@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn5mR9a+yOcohha_8FgzRBhV5Xz767CTd5W7Y-6DWfMFXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAB75xn68Ex0TUVQAWKw8K+yfWDV4TG==+WUy4ojF4rB7Oa=Xhg@mail.gmail.com, CAB75xn5mR9a+yOcohha_8FgzRBhV5Xz767CTd5W7Y-6DWfMFXg@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
To: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <loa@pi.nu>, <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, <mpls@ietf.org>, <draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x8G9Pdnn060605
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/samxCc-Xo6tdwvOR2eLtbAdImtE>
Subject: [mpls] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBDb21tZW50cyBhYm91dCBkcmFmdC14aW9u?= =?utf-8?q?g-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkinganddifference_between_P?= =?utf-8?q?ath_Segment_and_BSID?=
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:25:56 -0000

Hi  Dhruv,






Thanks for your quick reply!






I agree with you that Binding SID can to be used not just for label stack but also stitching in multi-domain scenarios.


The interworking scenario which we proposed also belongs to multi-domain scenarios, but as my last email mentioned,


the Binding SID can not meet our requirement. For example, the bidirectional path correlation and  the per-segment or 


per-domain OAM/PM/protection can not be achieved by using  Binding SID.






So could you please give us some suggestions to settle this issue?






Thanks,


Quan















原始邮件



发件人:DhruvDhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>;
收件人:熊泉00091065;
抄送人:Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>;Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org <draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org>;;
日 期 :2019年09月16日 17:03
主 题 :Re: Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkinganddifference between Path Segment and BSID


Hi Quan,

Thanks for your email..

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:12 PM <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>; wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
> Sorry to reply late! Sorry to misunderstand your comment!
>
> I agree with you.  Path Segment and  Binding SID are different and each serve a specific purpose.
>
> I think the use of the binding SID [RFC8402] is recommended to reduce the size of lable stack in our draft.
>
> But the use of binding SID is not recommended to sticth the inter-domain instead of Path Segment.
>

But Binding SID was meant to be used not just for label stack
reduction, but also for multi-domain scenarios.

See -
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-00#section-1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations-03#section-6

The key question is - Why are you NOT using binding segment for
stitching? I think you try to explain that below -

>
> The draft proposed two interworking models including Stitching (section-3..1) and Nesting (section-3.2).
>
>
> For the stitching model, there is no end-to-end Path Segment, the end-to-end path across multiple domanins has been partitioned to several
>
> domain segments and each domain segment is identified as an inter-domain Path Segment (i-Path). These i-Paths can be used to correlate the
>
> inter-domain paths whcih can be  stitched to an end-to-end path. In the headend node, the i-Path MUST bind the two unidirectional
>
> paths and correlate the bidirectional path. Moreover, each domain can accomplish the per-segment OAM, PM or protection by using the  i-Path.
>
> If we use Binding SID to stitch the inter-domain, the per-segment or per-domain OAM/PM/protection can not be achieved.
>

May be you need to use *BOTH* path segment and binding segment then!!
But associating the functionality of a binding SID to a path SID is
not correct!

Thanks!
Dhruv

>
> For the nesting model, an end-to-end Path Segment (e-Path) is existed and the end-to-end OAM/PM/protection can be accomplished by using e-Path.
>
> In this model, sub-path Path Segment (s-Path) MAY also be defined and used to indicate the intra-domain path when the per-segment or per-domain
>
> OAM, PM or protection is requried.
>
>
> In both models, the use of the binding SID [RFC8402] is also recommended to reduce the size of lable stack.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Quan
>
>
>
>
> 原始邮件
> 发件人:DhruvDhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>;
> 收件人:熊泉00091065;
> 抄送人:Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>;Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org <draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org>;;
> 日 期 :2019年09月12日 18:18
> 主 题 :Re: Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkingand difference between Path Segment and BSID
> Hi Quan,
>
> Thanks for your mail and further discussion.
>
> It is not about Path SID v/s Binding SID, both are needed and each serve a specific purpose.
>
> The comment I made during 105 was that you are using Path SID to do the function of Binding SID!
>
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiong-spring-path-segment-sr-inter-domain-00#section-3.1, where you say -
>
>   The border nodes should
>   install the following MPLS data entries for Path segments:
>
>     incoming label: i-Path
>        outgoing label: the SID list of the next domain or link + next i-Path
>
> Here you are not using Path SID for OAM/PM but for the functionality of Binding SID! That seems like a wrong thing to do!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:35 PM <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>; wrote:
>>
>> Hi  all,
>>
>>
>> I noticed you proposed comments at the IETF#105 MPLS meeting to the draft "draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking". Your comment and review is very appreciated!
>>
>>
>> The Path Segment defined in draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment has been proposed and adopted in Spring WG.
>>
>> The Path Segment is a path identification for Performance measurement and Bidirectional path correlation and End-to-end Path Protection.
>>
>> The draft "draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking" mainly focus on the SR and MPLS Interworking with Path Segment to provide
>>
>> end-to-end bidirectional VPN service in inter-domain scenario.
>>
>>
>> I noticed the Binding SID is also used in inter-domain scenario. I think the main difference is as follows:
>>
>> Binding SID indicates a SID List. Selected path by replace the Binding SID to a SID List. Path Segment indicates a path, it can realize OAM,PM,protection. Selected path by path segment correlation.
>>
>> Binding SID can not replace path segment in bidirectional path, OAM, PM and protection etc. If we use Binding SID, the per-segment or per-domain OAM/PM/protection can not be achieved.
>>
>>
>> I just start the discussion and comments and suggestions are very welcome!
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Quan
>
>