IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03

Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net> Thu, 29 November 2018 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <yshen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8C11294D0; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:53:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 OPbrSekJOReX; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D41AB127598; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wATEnT7a013244; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:53:49 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=dr9/N1L/31vJfRN2ZBEXoU7N6tyIfUrTda7IkrrE3HU=; b=vX5OMqHDFHBMo0OcGmLW2A9SrU1nwDCCuTYMbEhhLI5dVwov/pr/wnlqAuYsOFQicCxE aDeG1YWqEuHRjn6j5DRnleTS8MXfvI1EboKfT2hFUHTpqvlcjV9J2fq6gkcEkl89yiU/ mvRcwqrXTGL8vJuwXZwigxOpTIsVw+o3hbSRekpALahU33zn9pw7jG31WlRgl/NAXDw0 igSkXc9ZWgJlfj0jG6nmspdfKQ1im9UYC40x/k5P/BmtqI3tMyokJFfufA0LjL1kj2oP To406s7g8fX/HD8R92MOJsrRFxUgqb1YjU7Xq2S8ToYfpkvU3IV305VAG5pIgxmKRA4G 0Q==
Received: from nam04-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam04lp0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.120]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2p23mphgv3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:53:49 -0800
Received: from BYAPR05MB5256.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.231.94) by BYAPR05MB4982.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.230.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1404.7; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:53:45 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB5256.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::89f6:2f3b:b19b:47eb]) by BYAPR05MB5256.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::89f6:2f3b:b19b:47eb%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1382.012; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:53:45 +0000
From: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03
Thread-Index: AdR8MjymUP2LtqqCRvO1Anp1Nk3O/ALIazaAABqmdaAAAroogA==
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:53:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CEFA3E06-DE34-4A08-88E0-9F4319E89053@juniper.net>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909DAA9F3E05FB21A70C1509DD90@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <19B9F992-7DAB-478C-9F16-B641ABC898FA@juniper.net> <DB5PR0301MB1909C6ACB5F3513858A4F19D9DD20@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR0301MB1909C6ACB5F3513858A4F19D9DD20@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.4.181110
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4982; 6:DqC0VFAgF53eDs+9KN9MlhJX8KY2s48s7ZErfIxDiHkhCPrEzhgQeIQW/uFpCKbBWgyHPKGtVdeXTYhiW2KE/xn1KQJ6m/EptQ2UaMUPFIcRnvGMKP+9tQq6GHFuTwH3NlYKaUX/1AuilmrRWf1hYp/ILmYYMMV7Fpx+BU+nhouzt3vbchEmfCdVYZ6VR/r0LzDkvfoSawNyJn3YsODDX89lk2dmSHFo2LRHV5Xfer3Wd9LYsgDEHfzjZRmkUx2G8bf4pbGJxeM9Xj6MZurkrXPiC5yojAuhd/cNDznc1uH/b0aUtDFYeAZXx9+zS6L7T+HcqBxrEa7vKRtoS7K8uoEp4xdOm9HqTQUl0J6oSSt6EHfQ6C5Yd5Tn1kj1yc3tXdP6rsYSLHM7V8D8FgTJfAB1z3mM7wqAb/5O5WmED9dEP8E8wTlXZvwvw6GpOhp0Ed2L6gM8EXCDIVBdNKO8Yw==; 5:l/qP23pv1vr9fegOwxVeqN3AE2m1S9/p7eefMOq2mx1C04/T0NJY19aV4pB95Nt3HaQSjCMqZ1MiroRO+cQjihSvGWtM8E5bmhKOnce2Caooy5Buhm3Vd4KFJtMFpLr0LJh9esNOPuN08pIyIESLMXaDyxAe5LKkI87hgdZJdCA=; 7:6tPI9cVc/I3vetXK5s3Jmw1yY9J6aC9LkRnqt4xOK7uqPjrephe3xaktmFGuZ1MCKu5qpD7Jn1R14CouQV1BQDJQq282IoTAMDZY3B09pMdyAQygLoYAHASC2nbC3S6zkIBhKXlBvgwILDhksIiTBw==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c5e2a5e7-eb1e-4e75-e977-08d6560a7683
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4982;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4982:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB4982D73B98321E1BD8CD3624BDD20@BYAPR05MB4982.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231453)(999002)(944501410)(52105112)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4982; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4982;
x-forefront-prvs: 0871917CDA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(2616005)(66066001)(6116002)(11346002)(4326008)(6246003)(3846002)(446003)(97736004)(8676002)(33656002)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(68736007)(71190400001)(71200400001)(102836004)(316002)(6486002)(25786009)(6512007)(5660300001)(54896002)(26005)(14454004)(186003)(6306002)(58126008)(99286004)(6916009)(54906003)(6506007)(53546011)(82746002)(6436002)(478600001)(36756003)(2906002)(53936002)(86362001)(476003)(9326002)(486006)(105586002)(83716004)(76176011)(106356001)(14444005)(7736002)(229853002)(256004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4982; H:BYAPR05MB5256.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 8A33i50leXFgbclfr20Rb/7eY+SSLxv+dQOTfh6qAaTf4GTVt4HKkoKJ2q7L1N1WVKkLt5jAEzB25ptIem4wxIvLK1YtS79ssh9E/cCwprQjH29wMnb9qV3XrzhxJIRmsHiR9vGPmp0BFE00nvD7OULWwFPlhtU7/IF5fRQCWPxvOejG2MMmtN88s7o6Bpm7u9uzYRW0j3r85IpsHNoMmIX5YPpMKi9CYjw8n7H6oTP+qr2TB9towIVVC+nh6XHcsZ6kFjCnisXEWX8GZNMHHJp7+roggi7l8I7vLA5ziMGUfWCxHvTTjsSb+xwHb6AHLL2mtlZ2AAONHy1f5tTMsV/mqM8Uyk+b8lZFNNf1bhM=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEFA3E06DE344A0888E09F4319E89053junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c5e2a5e7-eb1e-4e75-e977-08d6560a7683
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Nov 2018 14:53:45.6428 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4982
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-29_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811290125
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/GKS53EXxlREsV_gz7ZSKYqEJYgk>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:53:55 -0000

Hi Sasha,

Thanks again!

[[Sasha]] Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary egress PE allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat them as pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic that matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the gain?

Good suggestion. We will say that, and point out the couple of possible optimizations (as described in my previous response) with risk of overhead and complexity.

Thanks,

-- Yimin


From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:50 AM
To: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03

[[Sasha]] Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary egress PE allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat them as pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic that matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the gain?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email