Re: [spring] Some questions regarding Replication SID

"Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)" <riparekh@cisco.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <riparekh@cisco.com>
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 80915120137 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=GxXNiXub; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=DvVKk03/
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 uitdKpbMc_gE for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914DE12004A for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=32724; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571264642; x=1572474242; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=WOSlV0GVx5T0aNLooxGmBl3Vdh7moYLmay7XNvj15ok=; b=GxXNiXubLhYu2xh8lJd5IvZzEsDrDbaRao6MwG0UR6GTwhw/I2XfZB8S iCwLydpuKki82rsFQon5VP4SoA2ibjA0g9ff20Dkmg2cf/jH+Gv6A5F/l S2+8MbSr4kY+keCV8UEPk6Eu1++zfPzTN0jteMgtn1FAWrG5xhK0AoREi A=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:wIhifR+0+KUV3f9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+8ZR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVdSEEUThIf3qRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ARAABVl6dd/4sNJK1mGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBgWkCAQEBAQELAYEbLyQsBWxXIAQLKgqHYgOKUYJcl36BLhSBEANUCQEBAQwBASUIAgEBhEACgnskNgcOAgMJAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FLQyFSwEBAQEDEhsTAQE3AQ0CAgEIEQQBASEBBgcWHBQJCAEBBAENBQgagwGBeU0DLgECDKMpAoE4iGGCJ4J9AQEFgQgBLwIOQYJ6GIIXAwYFgS8BjA0YgUA/gRFGgkw+gmEBAQMBgSUFARIBIQUHHwkCgwiCLIxxCogxmCUKgiKHCoFLjGGCOodPhCyLDY4wiCSRGAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBWQooZ3FwFTuCbFAQFIFQDBeDUIUUhQgBNnSBKY1agSIBgSIBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,305,1566864000"; d="scan'208,217";a="648004379"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Oct 2019 22:24:01 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9GMO1bF014199 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:24:01 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:24:00 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:23:58 -0400
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:23:58 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=l8PoBQBjKFg24njQdRpeSyxGluFQa58x/NSBuiL+P6JyzD0gIjhICgR7HVfdmDqN9MnbkZErxyWuuC7zcly/DaRjSLVIChtFzCvNfCtVJxfIbNDprQdQenG3ORA9LYyidzeDEntc+C4YNn72GXYYzaTxpzdn+2QRjO9VwcTzGaGsnb3mGPKgUl1BJpQ4P9ZdI+xq5LX9TAw7wtultw6PA25TjWO5AH4QLCfxaA0qSMQlh6SRHZuBdK2ExaxkhkiLXxERli3e5dhoJzBf8Y+0pC5yXSY+/N3m/4nByhUQXhfmKup921QwcPWrIM3nok/lJKk4mlofOoWRV75n78/EAg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VUnQQYqg1+KJt3/jpVflNZesooYELJYQPPT5EEvoZY8=; b=XCKP0Cv8eH6Uuoy/N84JfVysmGzXrPO7bSulu8m9pTiM/LIeXnx7iz3khVCvAJ/6VkGVBVoo+r0YVN+dAs0yCQvnqGOKAhQ5yPsixFUyVWK0yqrrbF8G2/NrdDmrxI8a/YZx87lpu6V0h4SolYo8B1Fg4f5gvFH4eoCOdzxB8jq3mAy99oyWnNFsGeIsF9THbUWhZfOQxCPQBV3Sov+U3uFnCs9Nlo3kz/IhRKoux3aGkC7fUWFTg6xD4eMS/gY8ncIxGBO+PyTJOIVhvFdDg3C8ZagHqMpExJtJJf7R1MXSE4h2j9K+MCG7yPNJZCBNuFQf0St+Ao0MxaZSqiVRpQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VUnQQYqg1+KJt3/jpVflNZesooYELJYQPPT5EEvoZY8=; b=DvVKk03/H1v9m8f3Rz4z2N0lBrrQkSCNyvcNWOOfw/tHZZ99KCCDYeTPFW6IvastEUVKEW21yYG88K5EbLdpCxUTy01U7ifHvon9ULwhJ9LR+WRDGvRMh2DuS08+3WRQ7a/j5Dgmds3t2kSm36TgF+iYnMMZKop5JDi7dAPf9YI=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3335.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.186.224) by BYAPR11MB3062.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.228.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2347.23; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:23:57 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3335.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce7:437a:c057:abe8]) by BYAPR11MB3335.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce7:437a:c057:abe8%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.023; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:23:57 +0000
From: "Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)" <riparekh@cisco.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "daniel.voyer@bell.ca" <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, "zzhang@juniper.net" <zzhang@juniper.net>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some questions regarding Replication SID
Thread-Index: AdWDVOyBSqV6o0PFS+K0ByGygF/1pwBGnOBg
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:23:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB333594644D596EB617A6E964DE920@BYAPR11MB3335.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB38285E83FF61212FD488C3169D930@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR03MB38285E83FF61212FD488C3169D930@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=riparekh@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [128.107.241.172]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 59fa4010-b875-4f0a-a58c-08d752878967
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3062:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 5
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB30626EF399DFF66E89DA3D26DE920@BYAPR11MB3062.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0192E812EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(51874003)(790700001)(6116002)(6436002)(99286004)(14454004)(2906002)(256004)(71190400001)(14444005)(2501003)(86362001)(8936002)(2201001)(229853002)(81166006)(71200400001)(33656002)(3846002)(8676002)(81156014)(5660300002)(1941001)(76176011)(7696005)(52536014)(606006)(4326008)(11346002)(446003)(6506007)(26005)(25786009)(53546011)(102836004)(74316002)(186003)(7736002)(110136005)(316002)(6246003)(66446008)(66066001)(6306002)(9686003)(478600001)(76116006)(54896002)(55016002)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(236005)(476003)(486006)(64756008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB3062; H:BYAPR11MB3335.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: AAmraq6mdV9bAwt4guHDF/d///4TFW0uOpUGyR6jdCRfxOBgS/ClQfwlr/l3Wv1PKEgwrA3CZoKAdsdww0vfshGi072BtZI2WFz9W/89MTOs5FiLjmQg1fy7kxI8DnwwpMgmYcrPFYEwCKAOJMuA0QeBwApGDiW1PywdDayIin6e9DTxoswK9wigjH17mTH3+el8fMOr01Qu8NWTlqPXf93ewjVgO1826EuTNK7Gm/blJeRWx8yKVbDhzsvbW4+1mpgIzWtiWpSvoDmwlm3AbgjDGskjB3hJlQUmGtjLyvHN2hJ8NN5V3OQ6kyhDY0dvbpLH5N48i8i3zx6UAv6W2rc+6k7yYVvyj8OnOAe1fAKoOZFVwT3dIzSnRxCUsn43vcP/Y9H+HAj+XsMOcqslCwBSqPROvlZqEKBEeL2D5ZdZVXVvqIlwMLxEvgaW4Of25lFCV8C4ifFZYmARzS6HqA==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB333594644D596EB617A6E964DE920BYAPR11MB3335namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 59fa4010-b875-4f0a-a58c-08d752878967
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Oct 2019 22:23:57.4079 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: dIudgaZBtUxkQAcHGrdi0edq4H/c55GKY/dzgK+ry6I8xpFOQbX/s2yukPGgkAFd54GnBskWoaRyfXU6BiG2HA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3062
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.25, xch-aln-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3sW6_WIG11rZkzq-mdX_heUP15A>
Subject: Re: [spring] Some questions regarding Replication SID
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:25:32 -0000

Alexander,
Responses to your queries are prefaced with [RP].


1. The draft says that "each branch is abstracted to a <Downstream Node, Downstream Replication-SID>".  Does that mean that the Downstream Replication-SID is one of the SIDs defined in Sections 3, 4 and 5  of RFC8402<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402>?

[RP] No, Replication SID not a topological SID as defined the sections you point to in RFC 8402. Instead, it is a separate SID (label in SR-MPLS) that represents the Replication segment in data plane.



2. The draft also says that "A Replication branch to a particular Downstream Node could be represented by the node's Node SID".  Does this mean that the Replication Node sends the packets it receives with the Replication SID as the active segment with the labels representing the downstream Node SID as the active segment across such a replication branch?

[RP] No, Replication SID relevant at a downstream node would be the bottom label with other SIDs stacked on top which would guide the packet to the downstream node. Of course, if the Downstream node is adjacent to the Replication node, only the Replication SID would be present in the outgoing packet.



3. The draft also says that "Replication segment is instantiated at Downstream nodes and at the Replication node".  Does that mean that the list of SIDs associated with the specific replication Branch is pushed by the Replication Node on top of the label representing the Replication SID in the Downstream node of this branch?

[RP] Yes. See response to 2 above.



4. Are the labels that represent the Replication SID at the Downstream nodes downstream-allocated by these nodes or upstream-allocated by the replication node?

[RP] Since the Replication SID is locally relevant at a node, the Replication SID would be downstream-allocated. However, it may also be allocated by PCE; see response to 5, 6 below.



5. The draft also says that  "A Replication segment can be either provisioned locally on a node or programmed by a PCE". These two options look exactly the same to me from the POV of the node on which the Replication segment is programmed - what, if anything, did I miss?

[RP] You are right in that it does not matter how Replication segment is instantiated at a node. The use of PCE is relevant for SR P2MP Policy<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/> draft where PCE instantiates Replication segments.



6. Did you consider a possibility of advertising the Replication Segment from the Downstream nodes to the Replication one using some multicast routing protocol (e.g., creating a SR-MPLS replacement for mLDP)? Or is such a possibility strictly precluded?

[RP] . We do not strictly preclude any protocol , but one of the goals of SR is to simplify. The idea is same here - use replication segments to realize P2MP trees computed by PCE (without need of multicast protocols) as specified in SR P2MP draft



Any details regarding instantiation of the Replication Segment in SR-MPLS would be highly appreciated.

[RP]SR P2MP policy draft lists different protocols (PCEP, BGP, etc.) that can be used to instantiate Replication segments. SR P2MP PCEP<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhs-spring-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-00> would be updated; other drafts will be published in future.


More of the same...
Pleade note that if the anser to #3 in my original message is positive, then the statement in the draft that say the Replication Segment is similar to the Binding segment srems to be inaccurate.
[RP] Since Replication SID is local to a Node, the Replication SID of the Replication segment at Root (or Headend) node can be used as a (constant) Binding SID to steer traffic into the segment.

-Rishabh

From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:31 AM
To: daniel.voyer@bell.ca; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfilsfil@cisco.com>; Rishabh Parekh (riparekh) <riparekh@cisco.com>; hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com; zzhang@juniper.net
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Some questions regarding Replication SID

Dear colleagues,
I have read the Replication SID draft<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00>, and I have a few questions dealing with possible instantiation of the Replication SOD in SR-MPLS<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22>.


1. The draft says that "each branch is abstracted to a <Downstream Node, Downstream Replication-SID>".  Does that mean that the Downstream Replication-SID is one of the SIDs defined in Sections 3, 4 and 5  of RFC8402<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8402>?

2. The draft also says that "A Replication branch to a particular Downstream Node could be represented by the node's Node SID".  Does this mean that the Replication Node sends the packets it receives with the Replication SID as the active segment with the labels representing the downstream Node SID as the active segment across such a replication branch?

3. The draft also says that "Replication segment is instantiated at Downstream nodes and at the Replication node".  Does that mean that the list of SIDs associated with the specific replication Branch is pushed by the Replication Node on top of the label representing the Replication SID in the Downstream node of this branch?

4. Are the labels that represent the Replication SID at the Downstream nodes downstream-allocated by these nodes or upstream-allocated by the replication node?

5. The draft also says that  "A Replication segment can be either provisioned locally on a node or programmed by a PCE". These two options look exactly the same to me from the POV of the node on which the Replication segment is programmed - what, if anything, did I miss?

6. Did you consider a possibility of advertising the Replication Segment from the Downstream nodes to the Replication one using some multicast routing protocol (e.g., creating a SR-MPLS replacement for mLDP)? Or is such a possibility strictly precluded?



Any details regarding instantiation of the Replication Segment in SR-MPLS would be highly appreciated.

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________