Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 29 December 2014 11:05 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 7F8AA1A00B0; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:05:02 -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 RKyVph1GSgw4; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDA8B1A00CF; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:04:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6426; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419851096; x=1421060696; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XDGCOOQ+eejFoTl3FMkL7+VagYq8n12d4Ryka9jjLOs=; b=NOQda9J8MKJnYxzNNnqMc7sD3MEH4J8W+MpeK7QFCCC8W18K1e3tndo8 eHLE/Fa5Wj0I8rVJV6GEjSjmaE4dLJ1YVPKgiJ3U3da/wPRYD0wyTi8l9 aU6Cjxl7DjKh2VZs5LX3+bT7IKhmry0xrLgLmLMRx09vP+oyA/EN03LeS s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsEEAHo0oVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg1hYxmUKhXMCgSIBAQEBAX2EDAEBAQMBAQEBNTYKAQUHBAsRBAEBAQkWCAcJAwIBAgEVHwkIBgEMAQUCAQGIIAgNxB8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBI8MGgEBSgUHBoQjAQSXCIYEi0wig289MYEMgTcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,659,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="286845334"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2014 11:04:54 +0000
Received: from [10.61.89.185] (ams3-vpn-dhcp6586.cisco.com [10.61.89.185]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBTB4qZc026853; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:04:53 GMT
Message-ID: <54A13555.2020208@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:04:53 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
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>
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB138100AA25B6773A7EAB5A49D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/8r2GZXVGzqBYotx35fpywN7i16E
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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:05:03 -0000
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] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-rou… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Mitchell Erblich
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)