Re: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Thu, 05 August 2021 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D0C3A144F for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WgYEiH3UgACt for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493FA3A144D for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GgDCN4r2fz6G9P2; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:11:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.19) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 05:11:27 +0200
Received: from kwepeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.128) by kwepeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:11:25 +0800
Received: from kwepeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.128]) by kwepeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.128]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:11:25 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping
Thread-Index: AdeFnRdF5+ajXwNuS4qFU1J0YgZG8ACdob9wAGR/m6A=
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 03:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <07ebe9f0b1fb46ffa2c80dc8a44cc786@huawei.com>
References: <c63965a4940349fabddb6aa6b1a44817@huawei.com> <DM6PR08MB397892CD5BE1EC98D8233D4A91F09@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR08MB397892CD5BE1EC98D8233D4A91F09@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.232.176]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07ebe9f0b1fb46ffa2c80dc8a44cc786huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/XX8_cimzayOpU5krwoyE4KqYxbY>
Subject: Re: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 03:11:42 -0000

Hi Hooman,

Thanks for the clarification.
I also feel OK to use the same port as RFC4379 LSP ping, as RFC 6425 P2MP-LSP and SR-P2MP-Policy are both proper to be named "LSP".
But I am not sure if the LSP ping UDP port is proper for SRv6-P2MP-Policy.
Does this draft include SRv6-P2MP-Policy, e.g., section 3.2.1 "P2MP Policy IPv6 CP" means SRv6-P2MP Policy CP ? or SR-P2MP Policy CP with IPv6 control-plane used ?

Thanks
Jingrong

From: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:03 AM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>om>; pim@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

Hi Jingrong

RFC 6425 updates 4379 as such it uses the same port, this is my understanding.

So yes we are proposing the same port as LSP ping
lsp-ping           3503        udp    MPLS LSP-echo Port

I think this is sufficient enough as the new sub-tlvs will identify the packet accordingly.

Thanks
Hooman

From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:47 PM
To: pim@ietf.org<mailto:pim@ietf.org>
Subject: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

Hi,
Following up the comment in IETF111 PIM WG online, my question is this.
Ping procedure needs some kind of encapsulation of Echo Request and Echo Reply as in RFC4379, first an UDP encapsulation, and then an IP encapsulation, and lastly the tunnel header encapsulation of MPLS/P2MP and I guess the same for SR-P2MP-policy.
The UDP encapsulation need an UDP port, and the IP encapsulation need src/dst IP or IPv6 addresses.
Are these UDP/src/dst the same as RFC4379 or have some different ones ?

Thanks
Jingrong