IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexander Vainshtein <vinesasha@yahoo.com> Mon, 04 December 2017 16:16 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 A4FA0127275 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:16:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.353 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, REPTO_QUOTE_YAHOO=0.646, SPF_PASS=-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 LV1nX791Wno7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic314-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com (sonic314-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com [74.6.132.123]) (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 47F21127011 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:16:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1512404166; bh=+ZhZsrSKyN3KoiSEGtWrkTT6Tgq8BTESION2Ng7TcXQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=nY/2Bd7/AYjZHq8Oa+5W4Ib7XwU8vxh5fgMhQHy+IO+ZwRYdB5FkmtjbAlxn9qBYczFvyAo37zBRiR/C0+5G4gDi6/XEheC0OCqfZFv4S9RkE+RpN0gtQdbgce+OM6SFodR8gwQS5zihjaL8XY2RmovohOdoCaR8JsxN/7ptaFsAatO+8ZY9Qm3OYNQks0hM8zS1iGs5S2bX3bd3LeUnKwTpblO4Qj3wmPt3g4Xz83wzP75Lu4x25KNit4GS8KtgLJPMeTZvNeWfe2hsy3oO5ylZ5bIkUnLlovKK/Zj09MOh2Tz/0Av6K0jMlTEaISafcJrYPPHjE1QSD+q55MW5Ng==
X-YMail-OSG: kV6Zt7EVM1kGq3TozYFfYp5FD29o7GDlwK9MUtdvLQmKjVgMNw_DFLkDfF406qD R3_cyYedu0U.iAg0QRYvkU3ysWaXdfwFPamsVtHsBSHCi71cXuz7D7I5UsnhmhbwVMWaop04Q3g2 NTsfdSJIy_SwzjTnR8VZcxAVi8x5l1GzBdqc7zP4jvAMU80Rn4uAzqOpvQgH7.fDRpLDBRrZYibM mgZ8ptqlbeFEWH5x30OYj4869azCRMn2mcYo8FBfMcxswlToKyBF6dZTOenTREBClyBjerT0XGkC 1GHJRJ.82z0Mydhg.UBxwTF42B8cnDqSDIO5V6LqVZr0KmixpkqouQCX7cfDRwSqAgVnCUlAwhjz Qydd_SJVK7komGODHSauWUMCfnUrpXD7EfYTP2eDeUIkGnwW8F.mbKJ2PKH_uYABUP6Iih.XlfR6 AtAbADx9gxmZnfUCp3vs7.kw6wwBybY_9XTO3v1n5m5XvwyEYyHfzOy70YpBF_yNZHA8_unGXj55 VBGWtafR9StqFsFlrgo5.MwXPNOZ0pbzJ
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic314.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:16:06 +0000
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:16:03 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <vinesasha@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "sasha@axerra.com" <sasha@axerra.com>
To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <810074892.1311964.1512404163253@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKz0y8z9Q3CDrpy9cui1cor+LiPaFLjj5546FOOjrg-tqC1orw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKz0y8wLYjkSO486w5WpSuDYV3Cjvgkv6887o9-Ky9o_ViWMrQ@mail.gmail.com> <210606893.1211556.1511362363266@mail.yahoo.com> <CAKz0y8xeYnqOjLxADVwndtOp8QQaPeQBiAO2TtnCi6pYfebONA@mail.gmail.com> <5A1D50E5.7030302@cisco.com> <CAKz0y8xsM975vAUj4PFf0Lpx=5R4_yyAkpyOsHMvWfhM-sgKJg@mail.gmail.com> <524395714.4958786.1511888332678@mail.yahoo.com> <CAKz0y8z9Q3CDrpy9cui1cor+LiPaFLjj5546FOOjrg-tqC1orw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1311963_1362464964.1512404163252"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.11015 YahooMailAndroidMobile YMobile/1.0 (com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail/5.22.1; Android/6.0.1; MMB29M; j5xnlte; samsung; SM-J510MN; 5.21; 1280x720; )
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/XZ_zF71wOfritkOGM_iA4TrC_UI>
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: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:16:11 -0000

Muthu,E2E protection of SR-TE LSPs against failure of Node- and Adj-SIDs that are part of the policy is definitely a valid and reasonable approach IMHO. And I also think that it can be combined with local (e.g., LFA-based) protection against failure of lunks and nodes that are NOT part of the policy and can be triggered by SR-LSP BFD as per RFC 5884.
For this approach  to work primary and backup SR-TE LSPs MUST NOT have any common SIDs.
Unfortunately, SPRING WG leaders have strongly opposed my proposal to combine local and E2E protection when SR protection use cases draft has been discussed.
Such a combination, indeed, is never used with RSVP-TE LSPs - but, IMHO, SR-Te LSPs are quite different.
My 2c,Sasha
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 22:22, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal<muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote:   __________________________________________ _____
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email