IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)

Alexander Vainshtein <vinesasha@yahoo.com> Tue, 28 November 2017 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vinesasha@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5681279E5 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, REPTO_QUOTE_YAHOO=0.646, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.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 7MaQzl_tud_h for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:04:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic307-3.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com (sonic307-3.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com [74.6.134.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C408B127517 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:04:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1511885058; bh=HwZ/Sze0aymR2Gz/YUuZuw2FmVUMhwus8zRSnJT/uoM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=s7cxv9njrm2LJ0vHkVSdG9QbfseVumWZcnSR0D9DHVAAuEFr+A6+dtS5bn0iiVA7aAe+AZ1ZZdla5WOTCLL2EMyTkWLyIEdVFb/G/IoQ3bfurTuBrZO0WRiXNq9HGrl+puMsOJMTu3VdCozvtqsWhA8n9KtaQlNfFc2+RRLZJjKMo+ZeWchX4qo5LPoaEdP2ex4ugPKVNkPlFK+efPMTbe60OvSi0JdQdLeO7fg7lgkIp4C8L7gv8I08vku2cKkOQgWzrFOnTqY8kmmy6mUWFRgGDExi3gU6xyZNNFm5hzT7hTT84g6dWJMbzNcVbk1FlxMNUQQ6KQ48AVOZzolgQQ==
X-YMail-OSG: p.OFNhYVM1msaklasSKuOomSRzbXgnX6fAy5DiW78on3DJAjbHN7VLOgFyqMqEi ndCZs4396Vm4KZqz_ljGzgYykJm8wnuC3zFZpr_qLr1gNCOFFL67ItwgI7dlNQRC9xbnpqEe05SM FNXVQfBShRLKjvOWIHwFV_xdum8K2LIb.e7WxmtIcYLRWd72lyp99QDEnYzk_9srTP9fhmmrId6H Rq6h.I3Ml_1fLWnPeVYJwncWjD_l5E.eWVS5zU3YT0A9SdWTqez1p6l0vIqQMN6l_LHMUguY.2Ve 7Xe8JYSURiJXzqFHmloufTIkDL.z8thS8MjNKP8DWTPBz892JAxpQNUafFdQ4XFzbS4vBTeIfWlD QZuMtiljHfV47jolmBia4bztHBrKRm1M.gGcffSvZuJVgX0Vjz567CjCRiBcXCCQRGu9ldMKw0tr iumliU10z6IDvtWSsrSfXEviEHFa3kwk_z_HkyhiSYn5r2a2QMCNzIAUDeslGTBIh5GNyNOAbi71 OutnnNgydORC0Jg--
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic307.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:18 +0000
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:15 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <vinesasha@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "sasha@axerra.com" <sasha@axerra.com>
To: "bashandy@cisco.com" <bashandy@cisco.com>, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>, "sasha@axerra.com" <sasha@axerra.com>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1776763839.4755621.1511885056113@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A1D50E5.7030302@cisco.com>
References: <CAKz0y8wLYjkSO486w5WpSuDYV3Cjvgkv6887o9-Ky9o_ViWMrQ@mail.gmail.com> <210606893.1211556.1511362363266@mail.yahoo.com> <CAKz0y8xeYnqOjLxADVwndtOp8QQaPeQBiAO2TtnCi6pYfebONA@mail.gmail.com> <5A1D50E5.7030302@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_4755620_1877416905.1511885056113"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.10982 YahooMailAndroidMobile YMobile/1.0 (com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail/5.21.2; Android/6.0.1; MMB29M; j5xnlte; samsung; SM-J510MN; 5.2; 1280x720; )
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/MUA86AAuKmJTosuzzfSWUuy4LZ0>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:21 -0000

Ahmed and all,Two points:1. From my POV your description of forwarding behavior when the link S-->F fails is incomplete: the top label in the stack may be poppoed, but it is not "forgotten", and the next exposed label is looked up by S in the context label space that is F-specific. I.e., if S has two downstream neighbors, F and G, and both links S-->F and S-->G fail, lookup of the next exposed label for packets with ToS being S label for F and S label for G will yield different results.
2. From my POV draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths provides roughly equjvalent behavior, but it is much more clear when it comes to describibg the DP mechanisms involved. (IMHO and FWIW calling a spae by its name is greatly preferable in most cases.)
My 2c


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:04, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)<bashandy@cisco.com> wrote:   _______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email