Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 17 December 2019 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D897B12011D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.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 Rg6DS_56C1O6 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (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 72861120114 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id x1so7746531qkl.12 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:58:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cy5LCGLThgRUtAkBqyvT2i1TifuiyD9jONrkOZyYI9o=; b=SxKYlK2uwMQ8VIK6oDfNfXhSNMHPJ2QIcz1ITdv20ByaCZg88JbiuZYyBqoWWuzG8D fXCZ/z/IbYtTtrZMk3JZYrv+pRP3/QmbnE0cv/at/4TBqCTpoqcz9Pb7fytT2xrp9kl7 mTieGAvjIxXXrY/amVA57EtGjLmt4bLHLWUrKE++47nyEJTM3/7/VkvxMvgTQ+thieX9 W+nW9qqet3xOlwYxupzMz2VM1sVcw+12sNE4y9efr8qlUW5O/4tHrES+++7T1wHzff8F 5HslLIOe/RlxHicaS3kz/gCaPLAXlMyV8dD8NiNQlJ0R7nGGx/6W7KkxTjsi6+GwsJIW 2ZjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cy5LCGLThgRUtAkBqyvT2i1TifuiyD9jONrkOZyYI9o=; b=cSlxQVRIrpIliuyJ54nKypd1LtRunUeURTocbEixkBrSWnOgS3KCxQ9nsE9eeCoEVj d4CkBJkq7eB++HxsbO8jiJeY6fmUcD7E9+xS0dlhD1ebBnwTgwqElCMzhCbl7LLJ2aWu Mgkz5vHBoM+FKHNy9aw/gasovLZqohO1aps7FFPhHoHgtqLEvOwDibKtwY0hZ6lgd9JT 0wNzHhzqkO469nFycxdZ7bAPAj1td4kNGilBr9hhVbnqGS35pz5vGgT97y+4y1Soe/L6 IOysEyQfiTDEsoICKFr/RGrue1nkHw2yJDCDJwDfb1wjNVHt7fm/7YJ2E8hUyuBU4ctU jNOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6+KPajFMhwQ+4zVW2surNDT7ElX+hdELT20FytIJLG6425403 rQpglXZCr11/cC9AKYF8313FBohoVz8CVem9UrUr1dQF7GU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy1y4q5TKv1BY5ysIFSZIOEqsjoxhZRqX1poiuYh5oBwougI5SMxHWE6vMg/t7innYhm8pl83Ur1VBTyzmz9T0=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4ac6:: with SMTP id x189mr579573qka.219.1576576738328; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:58:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN3QBScGjeL=yDSW3AOXZrVTGA-czbY2qDrOMQ=gDxAd4d=nYQ@mail.gmail.com> <38b14bf5-b6d9-4d46-ad1d-d26d3376df51@Spark> <CAN3QBSf2Kpu3Pd_FYmA7BCHJ=uWu9DnEEaYdQwGDDs26NmbJQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com> <c8967bfb-5a8e-447d-8e28-314820764f13@Spark> <CAN3QBScyJ5QgmKU8_h62pLF=FQ8y40C3sSRB1TWfKBQfdb1Mkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN3QBSdFVCBQVPVc2Ax0i2EgMrGqzSCj7YpsUUE2m3HiM9AcyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN3QBSdFVCBQVPVc2Ax0i2EgMrGqzSCj7YpsUUE2m3HiM9AcyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:58:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFZnhYgOShZDFuBAwvhaUPGppo+JTF1k_1+MWKh08NGQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000731b6f0599e360fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2SV-g2uHMvF0eM2iPpgVxGQ1ZEM>
Subject: Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:59:03 -0000

Hi Nat,

I am having a bit of difficulty understanding reasoning and the way you are
separating transport from service labels.

The processing label limit usually comes from data plane capabilities of
the platform namely LFIB or hardware below.

Such layer is function agnostic and it does not matter what role the label
serves.

Label lookup results in pointer to a adj. rewrite on the outbound side. It
really does not matter if the adjacent peer is your P router, segment
endpoint or CE.

Of course there are number of processing exceptions - for example concept
of aggregate VPN label, additional header modifications etc ...

Likely some platforms put such artificial boundary between transport and
service hence your request. But if so IMHO this is more of an issue with
specific platform or its marketing message then IETF :).

Many thx,
R.







On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:06 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote:

> Hi, Jeff.
>
> Consider a headend that can perform 1 of the following 2 modes(but not
> both):
> 1) Plain IPv4: 6 transport labels + 0 service label => traffic can be
> steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy.
> 2) Any type of VPN: 3 transport labels + 1~3 service labels => traffic
> cannot be steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy.
>
> a) As defined in RFC8491, the BMI-MSD is 6 for this headend. Do we have a
> standardized way to signal the transport label depth in mode 2?
>    Maybe in a different MSD type?
> b) Since plain IPv4 and VPN routes can be steered into the same SR-TE
> policy, do we have a standardized headend behavior in this situation?
>    (Should I open a new thread to discuss this? It seems not quite
> MSD-relative.)
>
> Thanks..
> Nat
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:14 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Jeff.
>>
>> Consider a headend that can perform 1 of the following 2 modes(but not
>> both):
>> 1) Plain IPv4: 6 transport labels + 0 service label => traffic can be
>> steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy.
>> 2) Any type of VPN: 3 transport labels + 1~3 service labels => traffic
>> cannot be steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy.
>>
>> a) As defined in RFC8491, the BMI-MSD is 6 for this headend. Do we have a
>> standardized way to signal the transport label depth in mode 2?
>>    Maybe in a different MSD type?
>> b) Since plain IPv4 and VPN routes can be steered into the same SR-TE
>> policy, do we have a standardized headend behavior in this situation?
>>    (Should I open a new thread to discuss this? It seems not quite
>> MSD-relative.)
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Nat.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gyan,
>>>
>>> MSD is only relevant for a device that either imposes the label stack
>>> (head-end) or manipulates it (BSID anchor). There are some other constrains
>>> when it comes to entropy labels and ERLD, please read the respective drafts.
>>> In general, SID stack would grow when TE is in use (any time you need to
>>> use additional SID to deviate from SPT), another case is when additional
>>> SID’s are used for services on the nodes, other than the tail-end.
>>> That’s why we've designed MSD to be very flexible to accommodate all the
>>> different use cases, it is upto computational logic to decide how to deal
>>> with different constrains (MSD types)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> P.S. you might want to see the NANOG MSD presentation I did some time
>>> ago.
>>>
>>> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG71/1424/20171004_Tantsura_The_Critical_Role_v1.pdf
>>> On Dec 14, 2019, 11:59 PM -0800, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> With SR-MPLS with SR-TR let’s say if you use cSPF snd don’t have an ERO
>>> strict explicit path defined or is a loose path, then the for the cSPF
>>> would the transport labels be 1.  For loose would also be 1 also.  If the
>>> path were explicit defined to egress PE and was 7 hops from ingress to
>>> egress then transport would be 6.  And if L3 vpn service sid was signaled
>>> that would be 1 vpn label.
>>>
>>> Let me know if I have that right.
>>>
>>> In Nats scenario for IPv6 he has 3 vpnv6 labels.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> With both SR-MPLS and SRv6 the L3 vpn AFI/SAFI MBGP services overlay
>>> single label sits on top off SR as if does today with MPLS so why 3 vpn
>>> labels.
>>>
>>> So with this draft with BGP-LS and BMI-MSD you can flood into the IGP
>>> the SID depth so all the nodes along the SR-TE path don’t go over the
>>> maximum which would result in an error.
>>>
>>> If you set your MTU high enough in the core like 9216, does that
>>> overcome the SID depth issues with SR-TE?
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:43 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Jeff.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the BMI-MSD reference. If I understand correctly:
>>>>
>>>> BMI-MSD = Transport Label Depth + Service Label Depth
>>>> Only former can be utilized by SR-TE policies.
>>>>
>>>> Currently do we have any method to determine the composition of BMI?
>>>> We need to know the transport label depth when doing service route
>>>> per-destination steering.
>>>>
>>>> This problem arises when trying to steer a plain IPv4 route and a VPN
>>>> service route into the same SR-TE policy that exceeds the transport label
>>>> depth of the service route. I'm trying to figure out the standard behavior
>>>> in this case since the headend we use currently produces some interesting
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Nat.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:42 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
>>>> <jefftant..ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Nat,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491#section-5
>>>>> Currently defined MSD types are:
>>>>> 1: BMI
>>>>> 2: ERLD
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically to BMI:
>>>>> Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels
>>>>> that can be imposed, including all service/transport/special labels.
>>>>> The answer to your question is 6
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2019, 3:42 AM -0800, Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>rg>, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, SPRING WG.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we deal with an SR-TE policy headend with different MSDs for
>>>>> different types of traffic?
>>>>> For example, a headend H can impose:
>>>>> 6 transport labels for plain IPv4 packets;
>>>>> 5 transport labels + 1 IPv6 ExpNull label for plain IPv6 packets;
>>>>> 3 transport labels + 3 VPN  labels for VPN packets.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) For a plain IPv4 route R4 and a VPN route Rv both steered into the
>>>>> SR-TE policy P1 with SID list <S1, S2, S3, S4, S5>, what will H perform in
>>>>> this situation?
>>>>> b) What is the MSD of H? 6, 5 or 3?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Nat.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> spring mailing list
>>>>> spring@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spring mailing list
>>>> spring@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Gyan S. Mishra
>>>
>>> IT Network Engineering & Technology
>>>
>>> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>>>
>>> 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
>>>
>>> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>>>
>>> United States
>>>
>>> Phone: 301 502-1347
>>>
>>> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>>>
>>> www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>