IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 02 November 2017 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@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 DF16B13F489; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kgf7OhLI4Xzu; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 775B713B42C; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a132so8826431oih.11; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=blP6Qaal3QZ7NTqAZ11hEUxugAF3hhyYbkSzF2ItpSM=; b=fSUOqSokREM0vlPm3x/gpD7FHwPRlhHAPVYs6UWcORgFMIrNUeeFG4RDCbx3g0kWIJ D8YIM1FVsfBJ/sXsqvtHpOUKYnUhncWyN2hVsgoYVHbP0xYuY9MgfMwVFXq9053ed5sR 034+9jIuMB8y8QVLkwjSKMEt7yjNBEJpOPH+nhOtJKa723KPd++EqYFnbJehTOyma7gQ VFodCtnV5W4/yqra970HouHPN9M2m35JPSOR50JVeOpTuYThezQ5JcjAgGoQzoNxRxjt G7J+/Xtalx0BNKWjvPrO+AeYomuBoa6MJ7uZ1IE5s6W3fzzOJMOec9TXKspGolz0+PkB /ajg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=blP6Qaal3QZ7NTqAZ11hEUxugAF3hhyYbkSzF2ItpSM=; b=WnaFadNbnEjSeb8aQ0v4BcgE3lhX3dqBaqoYcBW//DY694qkXjQ8qOxx+hHNNKkUj0 Q5+Sn0u6iatTCIQYj19mZ0EiGvhwx/eSsvknozy3RGofmslf+9QJcf0qIk0PdiOt3L5z bRAiiICQa6NAwi3Evp8LU/F7bSmojxEI3Xc2r2CQe+Dw6IuRj+TRXy5x/cX7gYA6qZ3V wNnZujyXB5xL6ZlOrhHdRqtnPmpVVNRC6dQHPbqiEqH20yAQMYe5PdhSxoBLHU2xkBpc InQmRgYUZr4CnCeekmWxl8T79LDEkJdenfukU3QMEpETixnmwEK29TxsdW4qnTm/DnEc ++gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6OiT8C+TocoMbupEVeqomV98nkE5n/leYeOEfPgdqs8vKgZJtG ZVucw2D8r9aOHtLRAiwkKmLTKoScmZPCicceJoU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rm3CpzeRzWENRbqiEqi0JBPHBso4ClvDmKjlw0oyfXnsX+lKWBeMuhdT2tbE5LytnLTP/uGlkJnkOfpWqGBfc=
X-Received: by 10.157.61.52 with SMTP id a49mr2107573otc.337.1509630828851; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:53:48 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2279010B-0E00-4E88-8BD4-C08611DBF11E@previdi.net>
References: <CAMMESszQPXizLdZoovAsnnMMnYDpBjRd7dEEokngBWLco_hJCw@mail.gmail.com> <2279010B-0E00-4E88-8BD4-C08611DBF11E@previdi.net>
X-Mailer: Airmail (457)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 09:53:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMMESszy-tn5K64V8G-abKi7Gghac=eegv8H9AhphadrMrVToQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing@ietf.org, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114093224bb7d4055d0051a8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/OQQ5kuSKkkOhwoH5wjTUx33mW14>
Subject: Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <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: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:53:56 -0000

On November 2, 2017 at 7:59:31 AM, stefano previdi (stefano@previdi.net)
wrote:

Stefano:

Hi!

> I would also strongly recommend that you include a Deployment/Operations
Section.


what exactly would you expect to find in such section ? We have the
Manageability section which illustrates how SR can be managed. An
operation/deployment section will have to be exhaustive and illustrative on
the different use-cases that SR addresses and hence can become pretty large.


To my view, the draft focuses on architecture, not on deployment or
operation. These are mostly described in the different use-cases drafts.

Expectations: take a look at rfc5706.  There’s a lot in there, including
manageability, which this document already has.  To be specific, a couple
of things come to mind:

- considerations about when/why the same SRGB should be used.  The text
says that it is “strongly recommended”, but it would be nice to explain
further the pros/cons.

- considerations about deciding when/why someone may decide to sub-divide
the network into multiple domains vs keeping just one.  Is it a scalability
issue, or just operational simplicity?


Note that the use case documents justify the need for Segment Routing, they
don’t talk about how to deploy it.  The concepts above (SRGB and SR Domain)
are presented in this document and statements are made about them but no
further explanation is given — that is why I would strongly recommend (that
is not a MUST) that you include a Deployment/Operations Considerations
Section.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email