Re: [mpls] Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP-based LSPs

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Mon, 12 December 2016 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 80515129601; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:22:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 o8gQwvbUS7GK; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D77FD12945E; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:22:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4332; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481541725; x=1482751325; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Lmbw77qgJj+b6P78ZyHzHHul6myr91XTLzWeQKpTYOI=; b=Qbp38O9KET7WLp+GQjstL/tv6ElF7AnC1RgR84tlwNN7geZI9P39MwXO M1JGDYLGU1oX3B8Os/Hm9X1JDJg8m/PsAX5o6ctNVOPE+Ma9gIPp9PcEe /OUpU25r8Onh1zlZu1iSrW9V3nZrEAzCVGfHWJHaDq5AQvNiJf4okTfqt c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAQBEh05Y/49dJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzcBAQEBAR9agQYHjUKXFJUEgggeC4V4AhqBUD8UAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BYiiEaAEBAQIBAQEBIRE6CwULAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQOBRuISAgOrDCCK?= =?us-ascii?q?IsWAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBC4UzgX0IglaESIMELYIwBZprAZE?= =?us-ascii?q?lgXOFAIlTjguEDgEfN4EfJA4BAYUocgGHDYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,336,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="171830710"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2016 11:22:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBCBM4DW027145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:22:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 06:22:04 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 06:22:04 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Santosh Esale <sesale@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP-based LSPs
Thread-Index: AQHSTzIV42CgudWQb0KCXEIVVUAA6qD6xksAgAA9goCAATbegIABwomAgAaMKIA=
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:22:04 +0000
Message-ID: <26917310-6D0C-44A1-A14E-1216DBA342E6@cisco.com>
References: <D46B0792.DB8E0%sesale@juniper.net> <03cfb8de-649d-9f26-01f1-a5f1a8181e9b@gredler.at> <D46C7FC2.DBBA3%sesale@juniper.net> <A6136F9F-7820-4E76-BD0D-630B0B82C904@cisco.com> <D46EF9E2.DBF6E%sesale@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <D46EF9E2.DBF6E%sesale@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.231.172]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <624DEB9AC579794098E01AC0A703B29A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/xEOVxFrfYdbbkcCGFd4dh17kpC4>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP-based LSPs
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:22:07 -0000

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 8:15 PM, Santosh Esale <sesale@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stefano,
>           The main purpose of the solution is to provide
> topology independent local protection using RSVP-TE in widely
> deployed LDP based MPLS networks. Link protection is already
> deployed using manually configured RSVP-TE one-hop LSPs. This
> draft addresses node protection.
> 
> 
> Now, the solution can also be used to protect segment routing
> hop-by-hop node segments and we would add a note about it.
> Of course, the other solution that you mentioned may fit
> segment-routing too.


My point is that if you have SR in your network, it doesn’t make much sense to use an RSVP or LDP based solution.

Thanks.
s.


> 
> Thanks,
> Santosh
> On 12/7/16, 1:30 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Santosh Esale <sesale@juniper.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>         Good point! We will generalize the solution to cover
>>> segment-routing (SR) too in the next - 05 revision.
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t think your solution brings anything better than what already
>> covered in ti-lfa draft for segment-routing. See
>> draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02.
>> 
>> s.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Santosh
>>> 
>>> On 12/6/16, 3:17 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@gredler.at> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi santosh,
>>>> 
>>>> just curious why the proposed solution is constrained to only use LDP ?
>>>> 
>>>> IMO what you have suggested here would just fit nicely for protecting
>>>> segment-routing node labels as well. segment routing node-labels are
>>>> "calculated" in a similar fashion than LDP labels as such my guess
>>>> would
>>>> be that this solution applies to SR node labels as well.
>>>> 
>>>> suggest to generalize it to:
>>>> "Fast Reroute for Node Protection in hop-by-hop based LSPs"
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> /hannes
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/5/16 20:59, Santosh Esale wrote:
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>                          We have presented the draft
>>>>> - draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr – in
>>>>> MPLS working group in three IETF meetings including the latest one at
>>>>> Seul. 
>>>>> However, as the draft is of interest to routing working too, we are
>>>>> initiating this
>>>>> thread to solicit feedbacks from the routing working group. Please let
>>>>> us know
>>>>> your comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Presentations -
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-mpls-3.pdf
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-mpls-3.pptx
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-mpls-08-ti-frr-iet
>>>>> f-
>>>>> 97-00.pptx
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Santosh (on behalf of authors)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtgwg mailing list
>>>>> rtgwg@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtgwg mailing list
>>> rtgwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>> 
> 
>