Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Mon, 04 December 2017 04:07 UTC
Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.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 DDE2C1204DA for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_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=gmail.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 33idkjTDcMY8 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (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 C71AC1200C1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p139so9554240itb.1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Yr7ifNvmK5YgkFuNKm6wt3VYHWrFauzcr4BD0MPbxd4=; b=vCWy7Nqt7klS5hl1WqxMqzvXui2eFBQHGG5ars8rCkmOyn9U0nqKJ2AiF0bI1onxvq /U25PIkscbuor+dOVpGOvIbjrUym4S/Drf5Q8AeLah/TNWqkk/impYoPfwrrhhL99avB 0B47DGPNe1OGVF+i6Nfwq2u/iikw6I/evu0ZYgp4mOaHo+UCbvfufRuTSrE0s9chZXXx 3kDL0hPKeuVR0TayybIniD4tdVoRbeYUhdq9MF0K+kA9r9YwXpDWfMnrwABi1DtEu+5y ukT7FZJM56p4PyhxemErHmuX0pYHAniWDWI1HAb1b1nMCoThQ438oY2o3s125ENUXQvA pPEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Yr7ifNvmK5YgkFuNKm6wt3VYHWrFauzcr4BD0MPbxd4=; b=t2ItnllmHbchaDa5owBv0JmZvYdkMnFzY9FoWOqhZ9pO47Wp6twnTc6VbWLDVSwfiA Dxw9pFVsF621SyRhXUH5oyMAa7M2NlqQc9/h7OAlIYUrypig1TLcT5J8ijryfRMJi98U mdE91HT36DNHbk7KLYGQSi54LgIGof6wQ+KJpIIrEN1a+SEp+JvaueutAy+GnZYvbBQM TzO9v+1ntDRqm5r0lTO7kO0BH08FPtRHKL/l0dH6qY/pB8pK29XK71k1Le1Hh+jNjEQB LoZyguzkW+jzAsl/VZgwQmuCu0BV3G8ZuNwlwmMwZaGd23fe4iV0DFWMa46dUDYe9bEZ DjNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6LAQ5IOCVKVIe7fEXy734eWdeudOzDOeB5tggdvIkEVZ0KV2Dd pMe09alQ9cOyQpViQjUmjjDtaZLZCGTeMR2Kz/Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMa2AW5238aGTSoVdLHLxNOLNwVVTEklRESYVB90N4pTs3sjO5zyCvjmMMGvcTE2KaOhswr/cKoVGDgS5sJI0ZY=
X-Received: by 10.107.7.169 with SMTP id g41mr23476208ioi.38.1512360475151; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:07:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.134.37 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:07:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5A1D9C25.1040808@cisco.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> <5A1D9C25.1040808@cisco.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:37:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8w0APhxW999SZgrMZ1kn=+1S=x2WFEMC9jrfWtPTWo4Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>
Cc: "sasha@axerra.com" <sasha@axerra.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ec53ce4d3fb055f7bdc1e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/YwyD1thb-Iacnf2NRpg346g2E90>
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 04:07:58 -0000
Thanks for your response. See inline.. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) < bashandy@cisco.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback > > See inline > > Ahmed > > On 11/28/2017 8:54 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) < > bashandy@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The behavior described in section 5.3 is clear: >> - The top label of incoming packet to node "S" is either a prefix SID >> owned by node "F" or an adjacency SID for (S,F) >> - If the link from node "S" to node "F" is up, then the normal behavior >> for node "S" is to apply penultimate hop popping (PHP). HEnce node "S" >> *pops* the top label and sends the packet to node "F" >> - But if the link (S,F) is down and "S" is configured to do node >> protection, then node "S" will still pop the top label. This will promote >> the label right underneath the incoming label to become the *top* label. >> Hence there is no need to peek into the label stack >> > > What if the new top label is a BSID assigned from the SRLB of node F or > a BGP-LU or a VPN label assigned by node F? > > #Ahmed: I just replied to Robert. Let me put it here > The node "S" knows the SRGB and the adj-SIDs of the neighboring node "F". > Hence if the new top label is not within these two sets, then the node "S" > will always be able to know that the node that failed is NOT a midpoint. > Define what "policy midpoint" is. Also, the case where the new ToS is a BSID assigned from the SRLB of node F needs consideration.. > > I will add a statement in the document to explain how a node can determine > that a failure is a midpoint failure. I will also add a statement to > indicate that if the node determines that the failure is not a midpoint > failure then it may apply other protection techniques that are beyond the > scope of this document or simply drop the packet and wait for normal > protocol conversion. > > > >> - In a link-state envirnoment, node "S" knows the SRGB of node "F" as >> well as all adjacency SIDs of node "F". Hence it can now compare the new >> top label against the SRGB or the list of adj-SIDs of the node "F" >> > > What does "it" stand for in "it can now compare"? > > "Ahmed: "It" refers to the node "S" > > > For the control plane to be able to compare it also needs to be imposing > the SR policy as I said earlier. > > #Ahmed: There is no control plane comparison. > > > Or is the MPLS data plane expected to do such a comparison on the fly? > > #Ahmed: data plane is expected to do such comparison. > This is not clear from the current draft. Would suggest stating it explicitly.. Muthu > It is not that difficult. Just make sure you have a good forwarding ASIC :) > > > >> - If the new top label is within the SRGB of node "F" or an adj-SID of >> node "F", then node "S" applies the behavior described in section 5.3.1 or >> section 5.3.2, respectively >> >> The bottom line is that there is no need for any peeking into the label >> stack. Just inspect the new top label >> > > How is the MPLS data plane in a transit node expected to be programmed > to make this work? > > #Ahmed: Implementation details that should become big problems for good > forwarding ASICs :) > > > Regards, > Muthu > > > >> Thanks >> >> Ahmed >> >> >> On 11/23/2017 5:04 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote: >> >> My understanding is that draft wants to provide a solution for the >> problem where the active segment is a prefix/adjacency segment of the >> neighbor and the neighbor fails. A solution to this is possible only at a >> node that is enforcing the SR policy (consisting of the segment list). For >> a transit node, its data plane would have to peek into the label stack and >> determine the type of the segment/label following the active segment and >> act accordingly, which is not inline with the SR architecture which >> requires SR to work 'as is' on traditional MPLS data plane >> >> Muthu >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Alexander Vainshtein < >> vinesasha@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Muthu and all, >>> I do not see how the draft in quesrion us related to "SR Policy". >>> >>> From my POV its scope is a SR LSP comprised of multiple Node SIDs within >>> a single IGP domain, and it provides local fast protection against failure >>> of a node that terminates one of the segments comprising this LSP. >>> Pritection action is performed by the penultimate node. >>> >>> My 2c. >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android >>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:27, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal >>> <muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Section 5.3 of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa describes >>> protecting SR policy midpoints against node failure for the case where the >>> active segment is the prefix or adjacency segment of a neighbor. >>> >>> I believe the steps described in the procedure is applicable only for a >>> node steering packets into the SR policy. This could be an ingress PE >>> steering IP packets into a SR-TE tunnel or an intermediate node steering >>> labeled packets received with a BSID into a SR-TE tunnel identified by that >>> BSID. >>> >>> A transit node that has no idea about the SR policy itself is not >>> expected to perform the procedure described in that section. >>> >>> Is my understanding correct? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Muthu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtgwg mailing list >>> rtgwg@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing listrtgwg@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> >> >> > >
- Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rt… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- RE: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Huzhibo
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Sikhivahan Gundu
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashand… Alexander Vainshtein