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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 4CBD512016E for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=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=no 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 M0aQOJWAs6-g for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:45:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 82B10120026 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id v15so93066iln.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:45:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qyVDxvvrp3qA/fLKVnAvfAoFnHIOrOokhjv/aLw2PR8=; b=ejTFIjuHtM7dGLh1ktv0+rplFFIVCieasPID6gTcKq+46hieKLwxYCCV9x7Hibmx0A 038K0pUw0hYp12JpesT2x8msWLd16mA/5ZCuxwwswfwaIs36hdUShEEA/0DjZqCTnVPW YVF85/wL5desgbsqw26XE86QyDb0LylEap8m522LQCgPIDdv/kjSwtqkZSpbYqjQU9EY 4GwPJYNRYDSChGyhXut6QWWCslbLBfGPAxzlvSc2Mu/E3yaD2MdYzRXBvzoj4wnm6MyK usF4f1aOeHC99bOQd/Gads2Jwz4c0EumRKq/Xmw6VlEIP+LKY22v372g3BtHpfp5iOCe 3kRA==
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=qyVDxvvrp3qA/fLKVnAvfAoFnHIOrOokhjv/aLw2PR8=; b=j2V+pEejF4geu0q4KlixCgvpzcA827SeY1LJGmm1c/khoEItr/a1rfP3JXewEXPUG4 ZxVLrKxcDb6CCW3Mm36gf5b+C6j72Uiq8QSACFMiLI2wAtf4Dc6YejxMbwoQ8K8zLd99 BG0blsXfKc0MnXrwfYutzPyXO9syME2IeAmnKjWwTB3jlT/QQIWqW1sipSKQlWpjrgcT YsdQ0jop0rBmOyr/LeJzp0tsZOodzTBgJ57Mui/g+eaMoW7QeaFrV2CdeKvtLA1kUEzr D8U14LOgBJmoz6+LQdkdM2pjnqtRhqSq3dN6ZB6v7lWUY32exOwtg+6BriOzNAxxhfp8 3mbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXeymuQRvgCf8QbpF6e26MkU6ZinCJ8AL0hoQkVM7F0sgcso/ST BZ4Ta6TSypt29l4nTzWY9SUD37oSt6rGhx3xQV8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzlW0hhOfKW1xKZYyRO0tBPn7QEIqm7Y+C03+eJZ2LhjhtVvUmQtvpkoEE0vK1N+jT6IvC1irXAIeHo5lqqEN8=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:4e:: with SMTP id 75mr370489ila.276.1576626300527; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:45:00 -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> <CAOj+MMFZnhYgOShZDFuBAwvhaUPGppo+JTF1k_1+MWKh08NGQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN3QBSf8e7H7337_E9odFRbz--whH4w+D0NVozsefVSsD75nNg@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR11MB1600FC5024F4CB780597079CC1500@MWHPR11MB1600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB1600FC5024F4CB780597079CC1500@MWHPR11MB1600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:44:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2WHuGMmw-DcxWoELtt6LLp7HRyisBLr7vjN6e0tPYh=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000962a0d0599eeeabc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4y938PoAgpFRB6ybTAOLfrKg4Fo>
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 23:45:24 -0000

Hi Ketan

Is this the artificial boundary below for SR-TE from the document provided
by Jeff.

 MSD supported by different HW/SW differs widely :
– Linux (kernel 4.10): 2 SID’s, some improvements recently (as of 4.11) –
Low end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g. BCM Trident2: 3-5 SID’s –
High end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g BCM Jericho1 : 4-7 SID’s –
Vendor’ silicon, e.g. Juniper’ Trio, Nokia’ FP3: 4-10+ SID’s

So if you are doing MPLS-TE w/o SR-TE policies reusing they MPLS data plane
the label stack is identical to MPLS just with different label range for
SRGB 16000-23999 for absolute or indexed label.
Label stack for SR-MPLS is identical to MPLS with single topmost label for
label switching through the core and bottom of stack services label for L3
vpn services.

For clarity on nomenclature below please comment:

Transport label - This is the SID label stack insertion at the ingress PE
head end to the SR-MPLS domain performing SR-TE.  Each hop along the way
hop the top SID label is popped until SL==0 at which time PHP default or
UHP explicit null “pipe mode” is performed. (Similar to topmost in MPLS
label switch world but now its a stack of labels  instead of a single label)

Once you get past the transport label now you are on common ground with
M-BGP overlay services

Services label- L3 vpn service SID signaled.
So with the service label that is signaled from ingress to egress PE for
service.  Is this a single label like traditional L3 vpn aggregate label or
more then one or many labels.

The services label my guess should be fixed and not have any vendor
specific boundary constraints.

Gyan

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:21 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nat,
>
>
>
> The MSD framework enables us to define more/new MSD types. If there is a
> real use-case and requirement (as you express) and the necessary MSD
> type(s) can be formally defined then perhaps the WG can evaluate it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Nat Kao
> *Sent:* 17 December 2019 17:16
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the
> same headend.
>
>
>
> Hello, Robert.
>
> Surely the current BMI-MSD definition is sufficient for platforms without
> artificial boundaries.
>
> In this ideal case, maximum labels available for SR-TE policy can be
> inferred from BMI-MSD and VPN routes.
>
>
> However we have 3 different artificial boundaries across 3 different
> platforms now.
>
> Hardcoding these boundaries might not scale well. (Especially different OS
> versions may behave differently.)
>
> A standard mechanism to discover this boundary would greatly help
> constructing SR-TE policy candidate paths.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nat.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:58 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> 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 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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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