Re: [mpls] A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 03 January 2019 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 AA979130E2E; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:20:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 N-GgrTz3y_HO; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.131]) (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 0F8B7130E2B; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [46.226.53.55] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-3.bemta.az-c.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id D6/B3-21338-0282E2C5; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:20:00 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VSe0hTYRT327273mpXrlPbSTRpSll5x2ZGkkU hFAYVQSIU9rjT67bYpu3O1MAwirAk04oymZjmI83sQaJlLywyV/Smx9Re2kPDoJY9Kdu9n/b4 5+N3zu/8zvmdj0MT6jdUKC3kOgWHnbdqqfFk3PSvUVxEtC5Vf+GOIf6KNzreU9ugjHc/5xcSS WfLe/2Tamq+KVYoVistdmNm7nqluf3hCMpq249yH5S8IQvQw+1oFxpPk2w1AT9GqpVSoGaLFV BRsp3EQQ+Cl/0fFLvQOJpi58PpY72UhINZDpq+v6OkIoK9iKBr5z5fQNNBbAI0ncvBNfOguba cwHguFFS0yVqSjYKDW+/LmGHXwNWf10eH7UEwNHRXJsb5hr0+9QJJGLET4Yu7STZBsBrw9FfK GFgWas7fJjAOgYG+X0qMp0DZU5c/xuFwr7JI3hPYRxQM73lCYsIAnQ2XRsXLoKi0lJAWADYSz rxdg+s9vsX6f44OmwE/uquV2JARnr2qQjhvhR0jTygs6CbgpqeTxI3CoPdiCs43UFA6cEkWqN k0uO7yjpqYDI27X5AlKKb8n+UwtkN9cTsql38pELoO9ZM4HwOH2z9SGM+Euqp3xBi+eblP8W/ +MPJvRHOMDovJ7LTxFitn0Os5gyGWi9XHcrPjdfxmLk0nZHM5gujkDDo+R9SJebY0a7rOLjhP I9+JpWe557ahwaOmDjSJVmhDmLjHXKo6wJiZnmfmRfM6R7ZVEDtQGE1rgVFM06WqAx2CScjNs Fh9dzpGA63SBjMnpvpoRszibaLFhCk3WkC/LCssI+j38lvYXOci6M6dwy5CTdoz7UKohvFKMl aSmbPtf5qO3f89FB4axCA/Pz+1Kktw2CzO//lBpKGRNojxl7qoLHbnn9mDPlsKn604iJFsOfm /VGgBMu5ftdTTE9BVP3zez5R4I3pD8toqjectM2FaS8zQowxjUEJrmCol/1fv1Mboa1HnigKS Zy2p/aTv/piXFBuQX1+5vGJLnsa55NbAovYM9/GI9SubvXe2JebPMn4+sjd/sSsOtVQdLN6kq m7r8TZMfDYUEXgyZN/GDQdmtr7eEmnru3pES4pm3jCDcIj8b5DY5qT6AwAA
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-307.messagelabs.com!1546528792!6088224!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.41.248.36]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.14.24; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 6342 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2019 15:19:57 -0000
Received: from us-west-2a.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR04-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.41.248.36) by server-6.tower-307.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 3 Jan 2019 15:19:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=I7g7zOC5UUtCUOng6eCo3U3IEUqYtcfnKsAXU3xEDgU=; b=LfTwTUo15Eb01kZGUVgHHOS5SCXyn432GswZ1pLsyDlTPKqIFGdroBu4hvlH54KtQmP4u5m/b65NeqFVejemN5M0XC40+YvWGtcHXYWNQtAKXqnDPE16YwVfWm6TtyIIb94ZGwDB/JWHnrnt5A91X9KQoey0AgbtGBc6iD75DiQ=
Received: from VI1PR03MB3839.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (20.177.54.23) by VI1PR03MB2991.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.165.190.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1471.20; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:19:49 +0000
Received: from VI1PR03MB3839.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::39ab:94a:ab19:b503]) by VI1PR03MB3839.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::39ab:94a:ab19:b503%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1495.005; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:19:49 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Shell Nakash <Shell.Nakash@ecitele.com>, Jun Ye <Jun.Ye@ecitele.com>, "draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework
Thread-Index: AdScRaSNUIIl9sN8QmyDA//QSoo/eQHKsTQAAAEt8PA=
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:19:49 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1PR03MB383925F57BF94AFF0A4A155F9D8D0@VI1PR03MB3839.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB3828DD11E7BCB069CB2B68DA9DB40@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <36264762-7e7a-bd18-da0c-4db51185d426@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <36264762-7e7a-bd18-da0c-4db51185d426@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR03MB2991; 6:OWZbGEaF51oHnTo4avx7KaMhgElwEVqqMlQpoer/CvfwwEhNH1JytRL8yxpYTFrKuSerpWR4sGipoLLDsQrESbFcZDgbGZ8vTeVR/RoB41MWn3L4AIU+gGEtKxrMmeA0pgSaHY/A3Ng/JTMCd1psWFY9eNPeuAqLdApt/9yj+G4j4Y9InE5CgxwNiHzgkL890VknrkSdbrfqq5RKCjpjtHtU9gu4Q3IIA0Dw2rpem1ZAJbNa4XOi/XC7NBrTnE5hbVydXXuSOAqUvYQyXT65/97KYPWc2WQIYU9NfMuaNY+XcjC7Tw0eoGGEdDagewc4ek26k3JEhSHoTM2a0ghekfUg4HonTUPelVqScFOt2mGKLcHKlSp9DR8GMqekD/s48jS2OmMavo3lPjZ1wGQmZTgGKrpFkTap80HT7FHVjNyk/RaCg9ngI+je0FoGmOVn1m0zPDNO0qMVaNaz+mhPcQ==; 5:noK6rOTN73dpMdr1IO8/AmpOJELZxgkJkDdRs+bmIPRbbYQjy9U0JlBtOUYehEgP+ZrtY4BjkluHKl7qwhgfstmPTpdCT/qFTI/4hPDZF0R2Q8yYQdhGMz/8Yljv5cwlDidtFujJqwf4kePoF3z5dUjSCan/uSW56/nC244QIW0=; 7:xCclBuVpcodbyo/B67GPdL6O2VPEpkdqvX+UuxVSWaJf2yjQha1H4dA+fRm04xxmSJajUxnNsbNQDlbssFBWGX4xaZq/KVH53NamNw3aauUBcwRUXRm9tnzWHI/89NUH4oOXY/Ctx2OggHDZE1T2nQ==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8bc664ef-9412-4d06-426b-08d6718ee737
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600109)(711020)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR03MB2991;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR03MB2991:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR03MB2991D9981DFEAF94913035A09D8D0@VI1PR03MB2991.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(3230021)(908002)(999002)(5005026)(6040522)(8220060)(2401047)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3231475)(944501520)(52105112)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR03MB2991; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR03MB2991;
x-forefront-prvs: 0906E83A25
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(54094003)(51874003)(6116002)(966005)(97736004)(33656002)(72206003)(54906003)(25786009)(8676002)(561944003)(316002)(478600001)(99286004)(76176011)(8936002)(606006)(229853002)(14454004)(790700001)(2906002)(81156014)(6916009)(3846002)(486006)(476003)(7696005)(81166006)(5660300001)(11346002)(446003)(236005)(256004)(14444005)(102836004)(53546011)(6506007)(186003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(68736007)(26005)(66066001)(39060400002)(53936002)(9686003)(7736002)(86362001)(106356001)(55016002)(6306002)(6246003)(105586002)(74316002)(54896002)(6436002)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR03MB2991; H:VI1PR03MB3839.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: dNTa5XS9KqoJI8kH74EuKXfW1ICqMImGmdr60L2G2D7PmX6qNlKVSI46qsUqJ9415BNnxPP8lKVzVV8LXpvgC556AEwTqqFuk498Hk5lmhY3hL7DaFo8EvrCY83lvo3wXbKwUP4KvOaeVMW5IdMU1CxEzDw/SFNFTJZ3RIi/4WbLWJpvouyQ0dyjUJwxh77NFu02b17KKkImIoX/Dt5h+d/tPhr2IoGYeUHjc5OCNAiL4hs3zct8iu6T4V4bcSTtEOllibaM+jobP8Rr/ogArqeQr38LY3criRuPlY7PRaeFvxcTUFI6wF/aOl+XXvem
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_VI1PR03MB383925F57BF94AFF0A4A155F9D8D0VI1PR03MB3839eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8bc664ef-9412-4d06-426b-08d6718ee737
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jan 2019 15:19:49.6395 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR03MB2991
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/BaUqQ1DFt-1pRmwUeFZWY25A5yg>
Subject: Re: [mpls] A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:20:05 -0000

Stewart,
Lots of thanks for a very detailed response.

I have completely missed the (now expired) SFL Control draft. It looks to me as a reasonable approach for applying SFL to PWs (and PW-based services) and LSPs.
But using it with BGP-based services, be it BGP/MPLS IP VPN or EVPN (including EVPN-based VPWS services) would be non-trivial IMHO:

-          There are no (bi-directional) PWs in these services

-          There may be no end-to-end tunnel LSPs (e.g., if inter-AS Option B is used)

-          Sending SFL Request messages with GAL and ACH following the VPN application label is possible, but I do not see how the Reply can be sent back

-          I do not think these messages can be piggy-backed on MP-BGP (even if these days lots of things are).
Did I miss something?

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>;
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:27 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>;; draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Shell Nakash <Shell.Nakash@ecitele.com>;; Jun Ye <Jun.Ye@ecitele.com>;
Subject: Re: A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework



On 25/12/2018 11:45, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04>;,
I have a question about use of Synonymous Flow Labels in the when application labels are present.
The relevant text in Section 4.1 of the draft says:

   At the egress LSR the LSP label is popped (if present).  Then the SFL
   is processed in exactly the same way as the corresponding application
   label would have been processed.

If the application label has been statically configured in the egress LSR,  then, presumably, so would be each of the Synonymous labels.
Yes.

However, if the application label has been dynamically allocated by the egress LSR and advertised to ingress LSR using some control plane mechanisms, then the synonymous labels would also have to be dynamically allocated and advertised by the same control plane mechanisms.

Not necessarily.

We had a proposal for a simple control plane that I propose to refresh:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control-02

The idea with this is that the application control protocol runs as normal and this protocol modifies the label for SFL purposes.

There was a lot of interest in the WG at the time for modifying each and every control protocol, but there is not much interest in writing the drafts needed to do it.

The draft in question is a framework draft and does not discuss any control plane issues (at least I have not found any mention of such issues in the text).
I wonder if any work on control plane mechanisms for advertisement of synonymous labels is going on or planned. ( A quick search in the documents of the MPLS, BESS and PALS WGs did not find any relevant documents).

Only the one I cite above.

I would be more than willing to work with anyone (actively or just as a reviewer) that wanted to write the control plane drafts.

If the intended applicability of the SFL framework is just for statically configured application labels, this should be explicitly stated in the draft IMHO.

No, I think the intent was always that there would be a control plane if needed.

Best regards

Stewart



Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated.

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________