Re: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Tue, 10 August 2021 02:24 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 767383A2273 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:24:07 -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 NzPmxaG09eS5 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:24:02 -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 C76013A226F for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GkGw21yG2z6D8nB; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:23:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.141) by fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 04:23:58 +0200
Received: from kwepeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.128) by kwepeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:23:56 +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; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:23:56 +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/m6AAH1cFIADavREA
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 02:23:56 +0000
Message-ID: <bbcd44a3f885435383095db920292275@huawei.com>
References: <c63965a4940349fabddb6aa6b1a44817@huawei.com> <DM6PR08MB397892CD5BE1EC98D8233D4A91F09@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <07ebe9f0b1fb46ffa2c80dc8a44cc786@huawei.com> <DM6PR08MB3978FD6E1D81175603B9B78E91F29@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR08MB3978FD6E1D81175603B9B78E91F29@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_bbcd44a3f885435383095db920292275huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/gxtjtdCZwQ-hckwAqKlU8atq550>
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 02:24:08 -0000

Hi Hooman,

Thanks for clarification and sharing of the points.
I am fine with all of these points.

Jingrong

From: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com]
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 2:06 AM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>om>; pim@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

Hi Jingrong

I am not sure if this draft can address the SRv6 part of the P2MP policy. I need to do some investigation on how OAM tools work on SRv6. As of now this draft is MPLS only hence why we only point to RFC6425 and mLDP procedures explicitly. But given that the fact that SRv6 is combined in P2MP Policy draft and Replication segment draft We need to think about if it makes sense to separate it from OAM perspective.

Couple of points please:
1.           I think I need to simplify section 3.2.1 to a single sub-type that is P2MP Policy MPLS CP
2.           as of now the reason I had 2 sub-types was because the root IP could be IPv4 and IPv6, but the address family will take care of that distinction
3.           after that clean up we will create a second sub-type for P2MP Policy SRv6 CP, and can look into the UDP port for SRv6.

Thanks
Hooman


From: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 11:11 PM
To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>>; pim@ietf.org<mailto:pim@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [pim] Question about SR P2MP Policy Ping

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<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>; pim@ietf.org<mailto: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