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

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Muthu,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

I do not think that the loop you have described would actually appear in the scenario you’ve described.

To the best of my understanding of TI-LFA, B would send the traffic back to A complete with an explicit route that says B--> A--> C-->D, and no loop would be formed.

Similar “loops” can happen also in MPLS FRR with RSVP-TE when the PLR sends some traffic back  - but it sends it with the suitable label stack of the bypass tunnel so that eventually it reaches the MP.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]
Cell:      [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]

From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:34 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Shell Nakash <[e-mail]>; Michael Gorokhovsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Sidd Aanand <[e-mail]>; Ron Sdayoor <[e-mail]>; Rotem Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

Using end-to-end path protection together with local protection can result in traffic loops. Consider the foll. topology:

B-----C
|    / \
|   /   \
|  /     \
| /       \D----+
A/              Z (CE)
 \         F----+
  \       /
   \     /
    \   /
     \E/

- All links are of equal cost.
- A, D and F are BGP peers.
- Z is a dual-homed CE.

A resolves its BGP next-hop D over the SR-TE tunnel T1.
T1: A->B, B->C, C->D (loosely routed)

Suppose A has enabled end-to-end path protection over tunnel T1 and B has TI-LFA enabled, and the detection timers are configured as described in your previous email. If the BC link goes down, B will immediately start rerouting the traffic via A (in FRR fashion) creating a loop b/w A and B.

A solution would be to make the A-B link ineligible for TI-LFA backup computation at B. However, managing this network-wide could become operational expensive. Hence, deploying one of end-to-end path protection or local protection with sufficiently short detection timers keeps things simple, IMHO.

Regards,
Muthu

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]<tel:+972%203-926-6302>
Cell:      [phone]<tel:+972%2054-926-6302>
Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:28 AM
To: 'Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Shell Nakash <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael Gorokhovsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Sidd Aanand <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Sdayoor <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Rotem Cohen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases


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: [phone]<tel:+972%203-926-6302>

Cell:      [phone]<tel:+972%2054-926-6302>

Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>





-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:12 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Shell Nakash <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael Gorokhovsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Sidd Aanand <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Sdayoor <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Rotem Cohen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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: [phone]<tel:+972%203-926-6302>

> Cell:      [phone]<tel:+972%2054-926-6302>

> Email:   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>

>

> ______________________________________________________________________

> _____

>

> 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

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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.
___________________________________________________________________________