Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Fri, 02 January 2015 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7E01A1B7A; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:36:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 rAeoYEzwZOS2; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3C61A1B76; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:36:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10961; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1420216562; x=1421426162; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=F0CNp1EKmVXHia/en3amm4gGs2fCRKp+1AjQz4we2QA=; b=LV2Y4DnO/Ux65gUDQZZhwzpX7ez2qoO0Am/BIBQ0+dPKnIDLdzlK1u+N M3Qb14P1F0w49DqiOmc6t9uVnjOLlV/7craGPRIBxMaLyCXtJIO3ePJWM W67JI0q/GPTezOf8xZlkhtxrr2oLHQY0EGMdEkgX7W8ccyvfflbBCZo65 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMFAMfIplStJA2G/2dsb2JhbABcgmQiUlgExiYKhXECgQUWAQEBAQF9hAwBAQEEAQEBNzQLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIgkAQzAcgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEig2EfxoBAR4GJgUHAgSDEIETBY4VmkMig25vgQw5fgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,684,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="383899244"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2015 16:35:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t02GZtKp013582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Jan 2015 16:35:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:35:55 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHQI/eNjO3OMGSsP0morl+oLI2n+5yoTnXwgASXbYCAACEzgA==
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 16:35:54 +0000
Message-ID: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA043C@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <BY1PR0501MB13819883015276791F20D631D5540@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A10B35.4030301@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381B131A68B321264B7E930D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A10E78.6030006@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381610E47F46E81528B5416D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A11188.8040301@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381860D81EE3DF32A76B6D7D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A1173D.6000200@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB138100AA25B6773A7EAB5A49D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A13555.2020208@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381AF63A9D0CAEDA844DA58D55E0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EE9FA7C@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <54A65437.4070808@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A65437.4070808@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.203.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/37Qren8dtFrGf5gKME9ZjsMBES0
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:36:05 -0000

Peter -

The requirement Shraddha specified was to not allow a particular class of service ("heavy bandwidth services" was the example provided) to use certain links in the topology. My point is that advertising a flag for a given prefix which says "do not calculate a repair path for this prefix" does not help achieve this. Once the network reconverges following the failure of one of the links on which "heavy bandwidth services" is allowed/preferred it is quite likely that the new best path will be over a link on which "heavy bandwidth services" is NOT allowed/preferred. This will happen whether you have the new flag or not - so the flag will have no lasting effect. It would only affect traffic flow during the brief period during which the network is reconverging.

I think you and I are actually in agreement - I am simply sending a stronger negative message - not only do I think the flag is not useful - I think it does not achieve the goal Shraddha has in mind.

   Les


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Hi Les,

I believe the idea is not to exclude any particular link, it's actually much simpler - do not calculate backup for the prefix if the flag is set.

I'm still not quite sure how useful above is, but technically it is possible.

thanks,
Peter

On 12/30/14 17:22 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Shraddha -
>
> When performing a best path calculation whether a given link is in the set of best paths (to be protectedED) or not (could be used as a protectING path) is a function of the topology - not the link.  If there is a topology change it is quite likely that a given link will change from being a protectED link to being a protectING link (or vice versa). So what you propose regarding node-SIDs would not work.
>
> In the use case you mention below if you don't want a certain class of traffic to flow on a given link it requires a link attribute which is persistent across topology changes. There are ways to do that - using Adj-SIDs is one of them. But using node-SIDs in the way you propose is NOT.
>
>     Les
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:12 PM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak); 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Peter,
>
>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>
>> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such service would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>
> Heavy bandwidth services are potential candidates.  The network is well planned and well provisioned for primary path but same is not true for backup paths.
> Diverting heavy bandwidth services along protection path can disrupt the other services on that path, they are better-off un-protected so that an event in the network Would result in disconnection and a retry for such services.
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:35 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde; 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Shraddha,
>
> On 12/29/14 10:06 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>
> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such service would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>> So when the originator of node-sid signals un-protected path requirement, there is always an unprotected path.
>>
>> Regarding the protected path, it is the default behavior as it exists today. You get protection if it's available otherwise you don't get protection.
>>
>> In fact, you can have the new flag to say "NP flag" meaning non-protected flag which can be set for the unprotected path.
>> By default it remains off and gives the behavior as it exists today.
>>
>>
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:26 PM
>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>
>> Shraddha,
>>
>> I do not see how an originator of the node-sid can mandate a protection for the prefix on other routers. What if there is no backup available on a certain node along the path?
>>
>> The parallel with the B-flag in adj-sids is not right - in case of adj-sid the originator has the knowledge about the local adjacency protection and as such can signal it it it's LSA.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 12/29/14 09:47 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>>
>>> Pls see inline.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> Shraddha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:02 PM
>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>
>>> Shraddha,
>>>
>>> I do not see how an originator can set any flag regarding the protection of the locally attached prefix.
>>> <Shraddha> The originator advertises 2 node-sids. One with p flag set and the other without the p-flag set.
>>>
>>>     It's all the routers on the path towards such prefix that need to deal with the protection.
>>> <Shraddha> The receiving nodes will download protected path for the 
>>> node-sid with p-flag set and download Unprotected path for the node-sid with p-flag unset.
>>>
>>> Signaling anything from the originator seems useless.
>>> <Shraddha>  For node-sids it's the others who need to build the forwarding plane but it's only the originator who can signal which of
>>>                            Sid need to be built with protection and which not. Other routers on the path cannot signal this information.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> With this you have two paths for the node. One is protected and the other is unprotected. This meets the requirement of having an un-protected path.
>>>
>>> It's very much in parallel to B-flag in adj-sids. It is similar to 
>>> advertising multiple adj-sids one with B-flag on and other with b-flag off , to get protected and unprotected Adj-sids.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 12/29/14 09:26 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>> Yes.You are right.
>>>>
>>>> Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means build a path and provide protection.
>>>> If this is off it means build a path with no protection.
>>>> The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on this flag.
>>>>
>>>> The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with p flag on or off based on the need of the service.
>>>> Rgds
>>>> Shraddha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM
>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>
>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>
>>>> the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the prefix is locally attached.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while 
>>>>> building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason 
>>>>> could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected node-sid that this service can make use of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service 
>>>>> endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of representing  unprotected paths.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rgds
>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding 
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>>
>>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>>
>>>>> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the 
>>>>>> label is protected or not.
>>>>>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to 
>>>>>> indicate whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
>>>>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>> Rgds
>>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>