IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant@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 051381200CD; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=BCxatPKJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=MRSEQwCV
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 6dPhbFgvzxxs; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF0E61200B4; Fri, 10 May 2019 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3396; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557490947; x=1558700547; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6uTfL6/tIKA6tanGvk1Dk1Do3eboByNXPvrOVMfKXoU=; b=BCxatPKJgKiRIrG+iPq3xXkaUcjdahrooG0Lhc5HaJr73l2TFgKfBY3s 3OEzmMNObbj79GHMLkJLTsjs1+RAprHC9NPZY6y6lpXr/cyYsYmvmmz5Q URDU+DJxW1y+Mhe8pDEIDMIiwnCkUtlHLXsHO+41vlqRMMYZtE3gWwq3N I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:IPA2PxEQVpfD523ioMBz1p1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w3Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNVcejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+ef3ncyU8AOxJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIAAB8bNVc/5RdJa1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBPVADaVUgBAsoCoQHg0cDhFKKLEqCDZclgS6BJANUCQEBAQwBARgLCgIBAYRAAheBdCM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEBAwEBEBERDAEBLAwLBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICJQsVCAgCBAESCBqDAYFqAx0BAgyiFQKBNYhfcYEvgnkBAQWBBgGDeBiCDwMGgQsnAYtOF4FAP4EQR4FOUC4+gmEBAYFjFQ+CZDKCJo1dmXcJAoIJileIHZVpjDGVAwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBTziBV3AVO4Jsgg8MF4NMhRSFCAE2coEpjhYBgSABAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,453,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="561129029"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 May 2019 12:22:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4ACMQCF026959 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22:26 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:22:25 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 10 May 2019 08:22:25 -0400
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:22:24 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=6uTfL6/tIKA6tanGvk1Dk1Do3eboByNXPvrOVMfKXoU=; b=MRSEQwCVDqlggGAF6kMkzuEC4j7G+i9llsrKTLW2aOg7wd27Y3fKDkiriqscj/of+butCyk9upXXshqx2RAywgqxheTKy71EfByp+8WEtJ9vr0QyO7NvZZLYKdd7COupuXO/V2EvGqvT3OXoyKTk2Pv+fTbXPLnWzCzic969zGU=
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.93.24) by SN6PR11MB3360.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.110.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1856.14; Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22:24 +0000
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c42:5f15:d194:98f]) by SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c42:5f15:d194:98f%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1878.022; Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22:23 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Christian Franke <chris@opensourcerouting.org>, "olivier.dugeon@orange.com" <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>, SPRING <spring@ietf.org>, LSR <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface
Thread-Index: AQHVBwZA6D+GFkAJn0WVlItKMapzX6ZkCeiAgAA6RICAAAF80A==
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22:23 +0000
Message-ID: <SN6PR11MB28452557B301185C57C45134C10C0@SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <13318_1557475082_5CD52F0A_13318_76_1_e581409b-8272-9b7b-df11-941f4325413d@orange.com> <e78e6735-059c-a563-d657-244696b904ff@opensourcerouting.org> <55B16264-3C65-4D4A-B9E1-5BA406FE64FA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B16264-3C65-4D4A-B9E1-5BA406FE64FA@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [72.163.220.24]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 080f28e1-e281-490f-2696-08d6d5422848
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR11MB3360;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR11MB3360:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR11MB3360730EC93D385B96CB4429C10C0@SN6PR11MB3360.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0033AAD26D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(66556008)(66446008)(68736007)(64756008)(6116002)(3846002)(66476007)(2906002)(25786009)(2501003)(86362001)(14444005)(256004)(52536014)(5660300002)(6436002)(76116006)(229853002)(71200400001)(66946007)(66066001)(33656002)(71190400001)(73956011)(14454004)(81166006)(966005)(26005)(186003)(478600001)(102836004)(6506007)(53546011)(486006)(7696005)(76176011)(6246003)(7736002)(476003)(316002)(74316002)(305945005)(53936002)(99286004)(8676002)(8936002)(81156014)(11346002)(446003)(55016002)(110136005)(9686003)(6306002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR11MB3360; H:SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 8sm+QCRlxjA9KMzAWyDj5UaJHW+D2h4BYRt/I6vLkzStfQ+l1vHmtY5PPthk1LhmBa8NC3WrEl0Qx0/Bq13bFkQm5V0Dq38iXqnv0SrlZlCQbTtTPgqhQdA5l3lnXwYv4mhnoXH6uU1y3lXZ5mQO8yTpCRIonnc70AJJ+hH0EsW6QEPzdJ9MEPp/zlomba9Tw51SLMfYIBKEGgdZ6FZW+LMxytRSZscg4nTY6LIO4NxeQgC6GxDs2KznsiKJ74RzEJ7FCHgv7Tl+43JcTTEOWM5jUXtHVMnf5ide0LbWMBzQmBhQxiSF+E6u1KX8eTmLa6oz690+9bIML2V6riDzQSK9VBvn7RNqmsmH0fjDTnJvE0HYitHCOIy9MyyWAde64jc92v4+PxRYn6zav16sZBhV0cDgRNvU2lxmk/40SvU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 080f28e1-e281-490f-2696-08d6d5422848
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 May 2019 12:22:23.7887 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR11MB3360
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.26, xch-aln-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/OziO-YLPo-fzivxQtNIyHu-OTo8>
Subject: Re: [spring] [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface
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: Fri, 10 May 2019 12:22:30 -0000

+1

Hi Oliver,

Technically Adj-SID refers to an IGP adjacency between two nodes as per RFC8402 semantics. I don't think a passive (stub) link falls under that category. It would be better to define a passive link separately (somewhat on lines of what was done for inter-AS TE) so that it does not get mixed up with the classical IGP links. I would think a new draft would be apt for such an extension.

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 10 May 2019 17:39
To: Christian Franke <chris@opensourcerouting.org>; olivier.dugeon@orange.com; SPRING <spring@ietf.org>; LSR <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

Hi Chris, Olivier, 

On 5/10/19, 4:41 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian Franke" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of chris@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:

    On 5/10/19 9:58 AM, olivier.dugeon@orange.com wrote:
    > In the current state of Segment Routing drafts, do you think it is possible to advertise
    > Adjacency SID on such passive or inter-domain interfaces or do we need to specify this behaviour
    > in a new draft ?
    > 
    > For me I don't see anything in the drafts that prohibits this kind of advertisement, but perhaps I'm wrong.
    
    My understanding is that the SID is specific to an adjacency and
    advertised in IS-IS in either TLV 22, 222, 23, 223.
    
    As adjacencies will not be formed on a passive interface, an adjacency
    SID should not be advertised for the passive interface.

I agree with Chris. We shouldn't reuse the existing Adj-SID when there will never be an adjacency and the current semantics require this. If we need advertisement of SIDs for passive interfaces, it would definitely be a new draft that clearly articulates the use case and designates a new type of SID that has different semantics. Also note that while passive interfaces are very useful in order to include a stub network in the topologies, they are not part of the OSPF specifications. I haven't done an exhaustive search on IS-IS. 

Thanks,
Acee

    
    I might also be wrong here, though.
    
    All Best,
    Chris
    
    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
    

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email