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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 15 December 2019 07:59 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 29EE0120071 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:23 -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 42OSG2_BXAR7 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 8E1EE120005 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id f82so3816119ioa.9 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:21 -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=nh1klNJvasCxZ1DXY6ZsK/0c8ZWcG8JPtNKzod8dXWY=; b=FWv1bOp29PSCtSk2yEG8lMMye3GgDeGs87Kkkpo6lKhKxewevCZ8hZUz4QNeg3x6Dq NN3L1ClfUcZd2Fn0dSbnsNQxqH+0izeDnCSXfFeEGWD9buwpnJeQwtPk5Vk5HxFzDTWr sMiyQ60t9bXtEEMDYZDPoib17Cnm6EjtdawT5fwR7K28B5uC0H+KCwofGx4IxP/AMHwc qKrt+7BbWt8vpAUclkn5LUfJzy7TVzkzcNI+uTQPkpFzJHLvdXFKX33Smnm7VWpKky4F pBsb5VAxl431hc8eLV/3WzJNtpz7xIUzcCNqXgt1zVZVl9XvfhNfJuqBkGWcnMYoM3/0 dJrQ==
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=nh1klNJvasCxZ1DXY6ZsK/0c8ZWcG8JPtNKzod8dXWY=; b=Z90H3alrxyIXoaVQJY8CYiWx4c4rRrz9fWi0N/Kb0j3QZC41hn6g/yRKObMItQ9YbD HT9iZdirwk9o0RMl3CrL2IivF87MKL9QuWoRilgxYlZFUVtYK9FN3XJDmZOOFEWBzqAs 0woTKWv+Gh2coUY1B0mB19Q7PN2D/BWcVj5XNQDcuY1AuBqbJ+F11NXzIZRuwmetcIbC SdxTh53Pj8awqQEax5ftNIChoRoWuWz0T+K+jrtSE7Q/aUx5tzqEQrj65MBslDks0+vu 1MvDT1gPEVZRVblRXAgyYy2josg0Y3mAZZrafLs5om8JqKIXhcIC2RO0bq3ve79Iw0eI u1hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWvEM3ISHL2A1aBfuY8UsgqbqqAz1fptIoT8PYjUDQcCBhzvwFN 2+12eGON8PTnoQACy6jOyoU2/xKOtRoWkC+VAAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYL65EHYTJ2uFg92N61SDaEnPIWhJi2axR+dc83m+gyvfkDcWS+YweP/jDn6JIEGz+w+HF/49EAtxcy/neepY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8505:: with SMTP id i5mr13676228ioj.158.1576396760554; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:20 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CAN3QBSf2Kpu3Pd_FYmA7BCHJ=uWu9DnEEaYdQwGDDs26NmbJQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 02:59:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f021260599b978d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/70AMSLy9q7LeW6fqz6a4N34UwiA>
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: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:23 -0000

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