IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14: Post convergence path

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 26 July 2021 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 46CBC3A0317 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.051
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Sk_Kxb7FUBFw for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA6B3A02C1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1282; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1627331213; x=1628540813; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oauVon4zbcd4k67YHDRXG66ojNrQB7tyxCul/TnmggA=; b=OaPy4yGCbxXQye04sOZjPv0pgwicoJhk4kK5/UREPYaKjLTkdqAT4Zso IjWVNPS8EVZCkLbAOon42o0jbnygEYR2QgKGm4SDQlgj7IwFm+eA2AnTd tqp4g2iSAy8vhbEoIWfR2ee7efTZSSYzihB7IwY3h0E8EtQxwwJC3KOqm 0=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0DdAQDHGf9glxbLJq1agQmFUQEoEoR4iQSIMy0DnVsLAQEBD0EEAQGEWAKCfSY4EwIEAQEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAXKFdYZCAQEBAwEjDwEFUQsYAgImAgJXBgEMCAEBgm2CZyGoPXqBMoEBhGiDaYFjgRAqjW1DgUlEgRUngn4+g343gyaCZASEAQ0QgQZkIgFmBb0ygzCDbJo/Bg8FJpVRkRKWCqU3gXcigVszGggbFYMlTxkOjjgejho/A2cCBgEKAQEDCYhbgkUBAQ
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:T7u7B64f/Li1+xDSVwPXwPPXdLJyesId70hD6qkDc20wTiX+rb HIoB17726QtN9/YhAdcLy7V5VoBEmsl6KdgrNhXotKPjOJhILAFugLhrcKgQeNJ8SUzIRgPM lbHpSWROeRMbC/5vyKmTVR1L0bsb+6zJw=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,270,1620691200"; d="scan'208";a="38153895"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Jul 2021 20:26:51 +0000
Received: from [10.61.107.16] (dhcp-10-61-107-16.cisco.com [10.61.107.16]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 16QKQo2O027930; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:26:50 GMT
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <CY4PR05MB35762DAB8014B24A782F5012D5E89@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d6381303-7dc6-f3b0-2d9a-a1a215589e73@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:26:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR05MB35762DAB8014B24A782F5012D5E89@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.107.16, dhcp-10-61-107-16.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/9ZKKxZ_gTOin0Vr_8-dCW164n9g>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14: Post convergence path
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:26:58 -0000

Hi Shraddha,

On 26/07/2021 22:16, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> WG,
> 
> Regarding Peter’s comment on the mic that TI-LFA can divert from post 
> convergence path when SRLG is used for computation I would like to clarify > that an operator is expected to do planning for the post convergence
> path accounting for the SRLG failures.

TI-LFA does not always guarantee that backup path follows the 
post-convergence path.

It depends on what is the type of the backup computed and what is the 
actual failure. When the two do not match, we can not guarantee the 
backup path being equal to post convergence one.

An example is when you are calculating a node protecting backup, but the 
actual failure is a link failure, your backup path may not be the same 
as the post convergence one.

thanks,
Peter



> 
> draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14 is proposing a 
> mechanism which will
> 
> divert the traffic based on nodes being upgraded to support the 
> protection. The paths
> 
> could be quite divergent from post-convergence path and an operator 
> would be expected
> 
> to do planning to ensure these paths have sufficient bandwidth to take 
> on traffic.
> 
> Rgds
> 
> Shraddha
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email