Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-05
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 31 August 2017 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 B48B21321C7; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 aa52gmnT1FFI; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 C0CD11321AA; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 187so4887041wmn.1; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=m+2sKqqSD3G+5yqNxyQmMY7CjHxiCyV98s6ASKhdLMo=; b=p5tKRAUJ7x0I5cWiADIClcVDaXCyDcKdLj7/BlSyWVxZfKoC9UlRtHfxVODXFTC4ic 3rqdxx66GR+r2OfJSPx/8rIMx8U9aLAof/qwlzWo0aeZZ0URM8vdmjWMA2PXl2IfLtMZ piACcMQu7T9ZAAsfN5DarzWCtqvC6vTyD/mTVH1QyOikuFoW43rg302UQCZu+mtIM1a5 Ym1E+dQiZPBqD5oVmxiazp7rlYnAvW290rTO2mpJhSGgiKQh1IqkU/oybP8Tdqa2gtDY 6gdSetmNXLv/g9IFEYvOIMSMPRAorY2aIqmTdtFpqGsTsX9qvlUn/JVZUd2gw+2e/BvH Y1kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m+2sKqqSD3G+5yqNxyQmMY7CjHxiCyV98s6ASKhdLMo=; b=tKx0BmJeiieiwlMlcdi2cJs8vILeIm0Oe3lopUESFsxTkH/vF7aCh7o+Wy7xY0xnDh vcHtQAJ/krTQIjp/iIeQX77HHO2U8pWWkX7M+54+wzMRhVt2qTu/MgdebH1gPYHjZa5q ApLcdIvsRn3oN60VLCJC73GctrhfGDfiBSdhyyE6NkHGKXS4F/enFj6AJLh/q5dNk//x Fe8YOKxF0WAARwHvdUZv4TtEgDc3VDRkVRlUTspNizreJHRbDGzYi9VGvdUyX+ZmJdFM D1Y/bajsUkPzaWbGAilpCtBS76oKCArYalvRZhvVZk5eLehtc8X/rrEMDID6ANNekzUB QIGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5juK4Z7mpcbRnzXSo5j6CAsPJxQQ7HWOeFatYJOJ8NuRvsBNGMM rJn7OmDhsbJ3b0KBHynXvX60MIv6sQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6AB2sT7TLedCOkjGjxbIOVLylej52q7jdtXPcuTJo6GjTkQTpEm1kicUVVvee+RwRiMF5j8aS+Gh9Ssg9vMM4=
X-Received: by 10.28.101.139 with SMTP id z133mr1231698wmb.32.1504214115049; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.170.199 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.170.199 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERn9UOfZv1Dv0Z6szCwKLb+ub8tP5_dKiJ8gxi_2cENM9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3822F955-321A-4B53-AAB6-1628811E32B8@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERn9UOfZv1Dv0Z6szCwKLb+ub8tP5_dKiJ8gxi_2cENM9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:15:14 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BheYlfdbALBMKO7uP87bNpIOA8o
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmeQx2bKaT-gQMDcuLyMvo3gKvKoEQnDJDAqAsaUsvo=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Cc: bruno.decraene@orange.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b315afe687005581323ac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SRwAk2OU_W7mphYO_Wkl9edR2Os>
Subject: Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-05
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, 31 Aug 2017 21:15:23 -0000
Hi Alvaro, Please observe that in overlay networking it is reall hosts how can compute required path or exit gateway and apply it to packets. Think about Contrail or Nuage. It is also not about "programming hosts to apply a header" it is hosts itself determine based on the local application needs what the header is. This is naturally applicable to msdc. The times where the network nodes only do networking are long time gone. Best, R. On Aug 31, 2017 22:40, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote: Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Thanks for a clear and straight forward draft! I have some comments (see below). The main one is about the inclusion of hosts as defining the source routed path, without them being explicitly called out in the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. Knowing that some of the authors overlap, please make sure there are no holes in the Architecture. I will start the IETF LC once this item is addressed, and a revised ID is produced do address the other comments, as needed. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: M1. As with draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe, it worries me that hosts are called out as being able to define the source routed path. Please make sure that the Architecture document has some text about the use of hosts – maybe constrained to the case where the hosts can be programmed. Section 6 provides some good text for that. Minor: P1. “service chain”: please remove to avoid confusion with SFC (same comment as for all the SR documents). P2. References: - s/rfc3107/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis - The references to I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe and rfc7938 should be Normative. P3. There are 2 instances of using rfc2119 language, I don’t think that either is needed because you’re really paraphrasing other documents. IOW, I recommend you take the Normative language off. P3.1. Section 4.2.1. (Control Plane): “The implicit-null label in the NLRI tells Node10 that it is the penultimate hop and MUST pop the top label…” This is normal MPLS operation, so the MUST is really not introducing anything new, just paraphrasing the MPLS architecture. Instead of the MUST, a reference to MPLS would be more than enough. s/MUST/must P3.2. Section 11. (Manageability Considerations): “As recommended in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], the same SRGB SHOULD be allocated in all nodes…” The Architecture document doesn’t (yet) make that recommendation explicitly, but a pointer to it should be enough. s/SHOULD/should P4. Section 4.2.4. (Global BGP Prefix Segment through the fabric): “…a packet with top label 16011 received by any node in the fabric…and the label 16011 is penultimate-popped at Node10”, or at Node9, right? P5. Section 4.3: “…and with the BGP-Prefix-SID attribute extension defined in this document”; that was not defined in this document. P6. Section 4.3. (iBGP Labeled Unicast (RFC3107)) contains this text: “AIGP metric ([RFC7311]) is likely applied to the BGP-Prefix-SID as part of a large-scale multi-domain design such as Seamless MPLS [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls].“ This paragraph sounds random to me as there is no further explanation of the use, impact, advantages, etc. Neither AIGP/Seamless MPLS is mentioned again in the document, nor in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid or rfc7938. Please either expand the concepts/use or delete this paragraph. P7. Section 5. (Applying Segment Routing in the DC with IPv6 dataplane): “Node5 originates 2001:DB8::5/128 with the attached BGP-Prefix-SID advertising the support of the Segment Routing extension header (SRH, [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header])…” draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid says nothing explicitly about the BGP-Prefix-SID Attribute advertising support for the SRH – maybe it should, but it doesn’t. NEW> Node5 originates 2001:DB8::5/128 with the attached BGP-Prefix-SID for IPv6 packets destined to segment 2001:DB8::5 ([I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]). Instead, put the reference later in the same section where it says “…sending IPv6 packets with a SRH extension header…”. Nits: N1. s/BGP4/BGP-4 N2. Section 3: “Further in this document…” A reference to Section 7 would be nice. N3. s/index11)/index11 N4. It would have been nice to illustrate the operation in 4.2.x using IPv6 addresses. N5. Throughout most of the document the nodes are referred to as Nodex, but there are a couple of places where Torx is used. Even though these nodes have been identified as ToRs, it would be nice to be consistent to avoid confusion. N6. Section 7: s/problems describe above/problems described above Also, putting a reference back to Section 3 would be nice. N7. The content in Section 7 is good, and the DC example helps in the illustration – but the applicability is not just constrained to it. It might be a good idea to add at note at the start mentioning the broader applicability. N8. Please avoid using “we”. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-r… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segme… Alvaro Retana (aretana)