Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

Hi Sasha,

You said:

 "Path protection cannot be applied to shortest traffic paths so they must
rely on local protection"

What makes you think that way ?

Only one specific use case of SR is TE. And could even argue that it is not
the most important one.

Adding protection to shortest traffic paths with TILFA is a very valid use
case for SR.

Another one is use of SR for VPNs. End to end path will still be shortest
from IGP pov yet SR header will be present.

Cheers
R.

On May 16, 2017 4:31 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Stefano,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
>
>
>
> A couple of short comments if you do not mind:
>
>
>
> *Using 2119 language in a "use cases" document*:
>
> 1.       Going back to the source I see that “MUST NOT… mean that the
> definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification”
>
> 2.       I agree that the use case document defines which scenarios
> should be addressed, but I do not see how it can impose an absolute
> prohibition on a certain scenario.
>
>
>
> *Little sense link protection has in the case of path protection*:
>
> 1.       This was definitely correct for traditional traffic engineering
> because the “shortest traffic paths” (e.g., LDL PSPs) could be easily
> differentiated from the “engineered traffic paths”.
>
> 2.       In addition, traditional local protection (e.g., MPLS FRR using
> RSVP-TE) could deal with link and node failures regardless of whether the
> failed link or node appeared in the ERO of the protected path.
>
> 3.       IMHO and FWIW, with SR  the situation is quite different:
>
> o   The shortest traffic paths not only coexist with engineered traffic
> paths: the latter are in many cases “tunneled” within the former.
>
> o   Path protection cannot be applied to shortest traffic paths so they
> must rely on local protection
>
> o   Local protection in the case of failure of a node or link that
> appears in the ERO of an engineered SR path is highly non-trivial at best,
> so path protection for the engineered LSPs looks like a preferred solution
> to me.
>
> I fully agree with you that the operators deploying SR should provide
> feedback on this point based on actual operational experience.
>
> Meanwhile I doubt that *a priori* declaring some use cases as absolutely
> prohibited is the right thing to do.
>
>
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302 <+972%203-926-6302>
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302 <+972%2054-926-6302>
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:12 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-resliency-use-cases@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
> Shell Nakash <Shell.Nakash@ecitele.com>; Michael Gorokhovsky <
> Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>; Sidd Aanand <Sidd.Aanand@ecitele.com>;
> Ron Sdayoor <Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com>; Rotem Cohen <
> Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
> Subject: Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in
> draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Alexander Vainshtein <
> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > I have a belated (but hopefully late is still better than never) comment
> on path protection as defined in Section 2 of the draft.
>
> >
>
> > This second para in this section says:
>
> >    A first protection strategy consists in excluding any local repair
>
> >
>
> >    but instead use end-to-end path protection where each SPRING path
>
> > is
>
> >
>
> >    protected by a second disjoint SPRING path.  In this case local
>
> >
>
> >    protection MUST NOT be used.
>
> >
>
> > First of all, I do not think that RFC 2119 language should be used in
> Informational documents, especially in the documents that describe use
> cases.
>
>
>
>
>
> this document is also a requirements document for the resiliency use-case.
> RFC2119 terminology is perfectly usable and even more, it adds clarity on
> what the solution is expected to provide.
>
>
>
>
>
> > In addition, I specifically disagree with the quoted statement above,
> because, from my POV:
>
> > ·         Local repair and end-to-end path protection can be combined
> for the same path
>
> > ·         Such a combination may be beneficial for the operators.
>
>
>
>
>
> are you talking by experience or is it just something that came into your
> mind ? I’d like to hear from operators using a combination of path and link
> protection.
>
>
>
> This document has been deeply reviewed also by operators and it has been
> always obvious the little sense link protection has in case of path
> protection.
>
>
>
>
>
> > One possible way to combine the two is described below:
>
> >
>
> > 1.       A pair of SR paths is set up between the given two nodes –
> later referred to as source and destination -  in the network. These paths
> are “SR-disjoint” in the sense that their “explicit routes”  do not have
> any common elements, be they nodes or adjacencies, with exclusion of the
> final destination
>
> > 2.       Local repair for these paths is enabled in the network. It is
> triggered by locally observed events (link failures etc.), applied by the
> nodes adjacent to the failure and guarantees that, in the case of a link or
> node failure that is not specified in the explicit route, traffic along the
> affected path would be restored within <X> milliseconds
>
> > 3.       End-to-end liveness monitoring is enabled for the two SR paths,
> and detects end-to-end failures of these paths within <Y> milliseconds
> where Y >> X. In other words, end-to-end liveness monitoring for these
> paths will ignore any failures that local repair can fix, but will detect
> failures that cannot be locally repaired (e.g., failures of nodes or links
> that have been specified in the explicit route of one of the paths
>
> > 4.       End-to-end liveness monitoring triggers end-to-end path
> protection to be applied by the source node in the following way:
>
> > a.       If it recognizes both paths as alive, one of them will carry
> the customer traffic, while the other one will be idle. The rules for
> selecting the active path in this scenario may vary
>
> > b.      If end-to-end failure of one of these paths is detected while
> the other one remains alive, traffic will be carried across the live path
>
> > c.       If end-to-end failure of both paths is detected (e.g., if the
> final destination node fails, or if the network is partitioned), this is
> recognized as an unrecoverable failure.
>
> >
>
> > From my POV the combination of local repair and end-to-end protection
> for SR paths is one of a few possibilities to protect such paths against
> failures of nodes and/or links that have been specified in their explicit
> routes. (Another option has been described in Node Protection for SR-TE
> Paths, but this draft has expired).
>
> >
>
> > Do I miss something substantial?
>
>
>
>
>
> to my view you created a use-case that doesn’t bring much to the picture
> but I’d let operators to comment.
>
>
>
> s.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Sasha
>
> >
>
> > Office: +972-39266302 <+972%203-926-6302>
>
> > Cell:      +972-549266302 <+972%2054-926-6302>
>
> > Email:   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.
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
>
> > _____ _______________________________________________
>
> > spring mailing list
>
> > spring@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> 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.
> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>