Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Thu, 29 September 2016 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2B912B422 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.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_eixDXhhMiM for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0107.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9709512B402 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=VaKrRipbTYmD88y26kj9J6hH1ndeocC40s4UiDhUQVA=; b=LLDHs27+7A2LLNnENbJVXB3fM6DL3RDaXfUlEDG9fM7EbAQMH5tVhqk2gNMEBAfBCOjM004Pyz3lwSYRsaJfR5JqsbhmtuIJRAvvYNcJ0MGOBQRbEj024XIzV/ooyOLzCKc/CPTMrA8BK80HGxUK4ptocsT4D4HD3F1H1TQwimE=
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.649.6; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:00:10 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0649.016; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:00:10 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
Thread-Index: AQHR4/NCxEmNaMtLk0SvZpHsNgIxfaA3X9HwgBKrwoCAAa8XgIAAG8AAgAUj0SCAA8xkgIAD23gggADv+oCAAGDtgIAABlAAgDcRMQCAAADaUA==
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:00:10 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB2829B89DA0DD805EBEC48DDCA9CE0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5791D96B.6080907@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829B34A5B8AB2F4489DC2AFA9060@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57B1AA09.3070008@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28296BF24F47EB6889CEE186A9130@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57B32AF0.5060300@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829450CD2E99F6996A10A44A9160@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57BAAA6D.1070905@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB282945C376A970F2711059BCA9EA0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57BEB015.9050407@cisco.com> <467e4ef70c574405937d7a560953403f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28290D90F43317B160025245A9ED0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D412AF9E.8112C%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D412AF9E.8112C%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cbowers@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.12]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b79a800d-40c3-4960-7209-08d3e881b0b2
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR05MB2829; 7:pKTKjjOx3WdLmYikkgcmDBGw5qf/e64IWv6YnapxyzKN+jcmHni7c4/02D+DppS3ldowlbz6qxB3cpVOyXU28wRmYyTtx6/Ke7GauRy70Ez3s/+gg/PgaVSgK6mGyb7Z2wVKMCVxLgP2eHtBevJRco3NW0e7q3vETf0ydcLT5SL0G2eQkub5MbaHtUhkj92K9yiEMQ/HF5nBrhhmS+u86BcMP8r1j0Y9oG4K7dRe8PkxnFvSHbVc7jErXMA/G7Ip0BL/nnXdVdl9wgKVA4mrObnCjIq+I/j79O7at2eV6/ntf3Bc1ReLVcLx/rW6mLQdivEuZCtnJpIbSSS20HwvTA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR05MB28295225072903BF9718234BA9CE0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829;
x-forefront-prvs: 00808B16F3
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(189002)(53754006)(199003)(92566002)(99286002)(74316002)(105586002)(76176999)(107886002)(5001770100001)(50986999)(54356999)(97736004)(3660700001)(10400500002)(2950100002)(2906002)(3280700002)(86362001)(19580395003)(101416001)(8936002)(93886004)(19580405001)(66066001)(586003)(102836003)(106356001)(3846002)(106116001)(6116002)(76576001)(33656002)(305945005)(7736002)(7846002)(68736007)(81166006)(5660300001)(7696004)(81156014)(15975445007)(122556002)(77096005)(87936001)(8676002)(2900100001)(5002640100001)(189998001)(9686002)(11100500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829; H:MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
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 Sep 2016 16:00:10.0460 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR05MB2829
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/EpyMsXwWxf5aLdYWsJLhnOP2pxc>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:00:53 -0000

I would like to see actual textual updates in the form of new revisions for the clarifications that have been proposed for both draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing so that we know exactly what text we are agreeing on.

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft

Speaking as WG Co-Chair:

Hi Chris, Les, Peter,

So, is there anything preventing us from requesting publication of the
OSPFv2 Segment Routing draft?

Thanks,
Acee


On 8/25/16, 11:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Chris Bowers"
<ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of cbowers@juniper.net> wrote:

>Les and Peter,
>
>I have also been pursuing the approach you suggest.
>
>The following request to clarify draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 
>on this topic was sent on  Aug. 3rd.
>
>https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/current/msg02273.html
>
>Hopefully, we can get closure on these clarifications soon.
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:32 AM
>To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>; Chris Bowers 
><cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>
>Chris/Peter -
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
>> (ppsenak)
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:45 AM
>> To: Chris Bowers; OSPF List
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> On 24/08/16 20:31 , Chris Bowers wrote:
>> > Peter,
>> >
>> > The text that you propose corresponds to part of the text that I 
>> > proposed,
>> and it seems good to me.
>> >
>> > However, the last sentence of the text that I proposed in not
>>addressed.
>> > ------
>> > If router B does not advertise the
>> > SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not 
>> > forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X 
>> > advertised by some router D using a path that would require router 
>> > B to forward traffic using algorithm X.
>> > ------
>> > Is this an oversight?
>> 
>> not that I disagree with the statement that you want to add.
>> 
>> The question is whether that belongs to the IGP SR draft, or whether 
>> that should be specified in a different draft.
>> 
>> There is already some text regarding the forwarding for a SR 
>> algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1., which 
>> may not be aligned with what you have in mind:
>> 
>>    "The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a 
>>prefix,
>>     advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the
>>     advertised algorithm.  In other words, when computing paths for a
>>     given algorithm, the transit nodes MUST compute the algorithm X on
>>     the IGP topology, regardless of the support of the algorithm X by 
>>the
>>     nodes in that topology.  As a consequence, if a node on the path 
>>does
>>     not support algorithm X, the IGP-Prefix segment will be interrupted
>>     and will drop packet on that node.  It's the responsibility of the
>>     ingress node using a segment to check that all downstream nodes
>>     support the algorithm of the segment."
>> 
>> Maybe we should add/modify the text in  
>>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1, rather then adding 
>>anything to the OSPF/ISIS SR drafts.
>> 
>[Les:] I strongly agree with this approach. If one wants to understand 
>how the MPLS dataplane works with SR then the following documents are
>relevant:
>
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-0
>4.t
>xt
>
>References to these documents can be included in the IGP drafts - but 
>we should not try to repurpose the IGP drafts to cover material which 
>is covered far more completely in the above drafts.
>
>If you feel there is something which needs to be added/revised to any 
>of the above drafts to more accurately explain algorithm specific 
>forwarding please make the comment in the context of one of those drafts.
>
>   Les
>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>> 
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:32 AM
>> > To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > what about this to be added in the Section 3.1:
>> >
>> >
>> > "A router receiving a Prefix-SID (defined in section 5) from a 
>> > remote node
>> and with an SR algorithm value that such remote node has not  
>>advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV MUST ignore the Prefix-SID 
>>sub-TLV."
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> >
>> > On 19/08/16 23:33 , Chris Bowers wrote:
>> >> Peter,
>> >>
>> >> Please share the updated text that you plan to use with the WG, 
>> >> since this
>> is a reasonably significant clarification.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:02 AM
>> >> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>> >>
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >>
>> >> I'll update the draft along those lines.
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> Peter
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 16/08/16 16:02 , Chris Bowers wrote:
>> >>> Peter,
>> >>>
>> >>> I suggest changing the paragraph to read as below to make this
>>clearer.
>> >>>
>> >>> =====
>> >>>       The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional.  It MAY only be
>>advertised once
>> >>>       in the Router Information Opaque LSA.  If the SID/Label 
>> >>> Range
>>TLV, as
>> >>>       defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the 
>> >>> SR-Algorithm
>>TLV MUST
>> >>>       also be advertised.  If a router C advertises a Prefix-SID 
>> >>> sub-TLV for
>> algorithm X
>> >>>       but does not advertise the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV with 
>> >>> algorithm X,
>> then
>> >>>       a router receiving that advertisement MUST ignore the
>>Prefix-SID
>> >>>       advertisement from router C.  If router B does not 
>> >>> advertise
>>the
>> >>>       SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should
>>not
>> >>>       forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X
>>advertised by
>> >>>       some router D using a path that would require router B to 
>> >>> forward
>> traffic using
>> >>>       algorithm X.
>> >>> =====
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Chris
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> >>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:40 AM
>> >>> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Chris,
>> >>>
>> >>> sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks.
>> >>> Please see inline:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote:
>> >>>> Peter,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was 
>> >>>> added, I am not sure how to interpret it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>        The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional.  It MAY only be 
>> >>>> advertised
>> once
>> >>>>        in the Router Information Opaque LSA.  If the SID/Label 
>> >>>> Range TLV,
>> as
>> >>>>        defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the 
>> >>>> SR-Algorithm TLV
>> MUST
>> >>>>        also be advertised.  If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not
>>advertised by the
>> >>>>        node, such node is considered as not being segment 
>> >>>> routing
>> capable.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not 
>> >>>> advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any 
>> >>>> prefix-SIDs for algorithm X advertised by that router will be 
>> >>>> ignored by
>> other routers?
>> >>>
>> >>> in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm 
>> >>> TLV for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the 
>> >>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, other routers should not send 
>> >>> any SR traffic using SIDs that were advertised for algorithm X.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the 
>> >>> node is not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to
>>such a node.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>> Peter
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is 
>> >>>> more
>> explicitly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Chris
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
>> >>>> Psenak
>> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM
>> >>>> To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> >>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi All,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> following text has been added in the latest revision of the
>> >>>> OSPFv2 SR draft, section 3.1.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is 
>> >>>> considered as not being segment routing capable."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this
>>addition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> thanks,
>> >>>> Peter
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> OSPF mailing list
>> >>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> >>>> .
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> .
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf