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

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Mon, 29 December 2014 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
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 E2EF51A004C; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 01:33:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VOtz62ypI1U6; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 01:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0144.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE7731A0046; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 01:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.139) by BY1PR0501MB1384.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:33:31 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:33:30 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AdAfZ+2t8gRxJR1gRJOVEF41ljB4rwD1jwiAAAAaeDAAAGH0AAAABIpwAABwSQAAABH9IAAAx7iAAABm0oAAADteMA==
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:33:29 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB13811064F9C6F3FE646CDEBCD5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.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> <8673017E-4E86-4D2E-8522-DF49ED869E2D@rob.sh>
In-Reply-To: <8673017E-4E86-4D2E-8522-DF49ED869E2D@rob.sh>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.13]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=shraddha@juniper.net;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1384;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1384;
x-forefront-prvs: 0440AC9990
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(24454002)(71364002)(51704005)(479174004)(189002)(377454003)(13464003)(50986999)(54356999)(46102003)(33656002)(21056001)(122556002)(97736003)(54206007)(4396001)(54606007)(76176999)(77156002)(62966003)(40100003)(19580405001)(93886004)(76576001)(92566001)(230783001)(101416001)(74316001)(15975445007)(19580395003)(66066001)(99396003)(120916001)(86362001)(31966008)(2656002)(102836002)(2900100001)(64706001)(68736005)(20776003)(99286002)(106356001)(107046002)(87936001)(2950100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1384; H:BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Dec 2014 09:33:29.7813 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1384
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/72jVzzA5uxwuwvNqlG6J7aaQ-ps
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:33:35 -0000

Rob,

Pls see inline..

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:rjs@rob.sh] 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Peter Psenak; Shraddha Hegde
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Peter, Shraddha,

Primarily —  I don’t think that use of the ‘B’ flag in the Adj-SID implies that there MUST be a backup route installed, it merely indicates that the Adj-SID MAY be subject to re-routing (and hence strict placement on an adjacency may not be honoured during link failures).

<Shraddha> Yes. I agree.

For me, I’m unclear on what the practical use of not requesting backup for a {Node,Prefix}-SID could be — its very nature (“the shortest path to X” where X is a node/prefix) means that it is not well defined in terms of a route through the network, and hence is not well defined in terms of performance. This (to me) says that we cannot really rely on such a SID for performance-sensitive traffic, and hence must always be able to tolerate events such as FRR paths during protection.

<Shraddha> It is likely that some application wants to use the node-sids when the strict path for performance sensitive traffic matches with that of the SPF  for some segments or for the entire path. 

The fact that AdjSID maps deterministically to a particular link, about which the calculating entity (PCE/iLER) can know details of, means that performance can be inferred - and hence strict affinity to that path (and/or failure when it is not available) is of utility.


Kind regards,
r.


> On 29 Dec 2014, at 08:56, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> .
>>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg