Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Fri, 01 August 2014 18:57 UTC
Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4B71A0378; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 X_RmEF93sFVU; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0141.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673C31A0299; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BLUPR05MB290.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:57:27 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:57:27 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Thread-Index: AQHPrVVlZUhG+onF1UCfCRTemcAiVJu8GV0w
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:57:26 +0000
Message-ID: <ea683383e8654c519884fa0aead26d60@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73f@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F319D19@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFE267E5-A027-493B-A1C1-49BC66F59FB8@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.14]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 029097202E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199002)(189002)(18374002)(13464003)(51704005)(164054003)(37854004)(24454002)(377454003)(99286002)(76576001)(77982001)(95666004)(106356001)(79102001)(21056001)(106116001)(101416001)(80022001)(105586002)(50986999)(99396002)(85306004)(74662001)(64706001)(81342001)(76482001)(81542001)(76176999)(2656002)(87936001)(83322001)(4396001)(20776003)(74316001)(92566001)(54356999)(19580405001)(86362001)(107046002)(33646002)(15975445006)(74502001)(46102001)(15202345003)(66066001)(83072002)(19580395003)(31966008)(85852003)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB290; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:3; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/U25Qjz5FvdlR_WeMpJJy88YVujM
Cc: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Aug 2014 18:57:35 -0000
I disagree. The proposed text contains four Binding TLV usage examples which are not qualitatively different from the two usage examples already included in section 2.4.3 of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02. Additional usage examples are needed to clarify how the TLVs and sub-TLVs defined in this document should be used, without ambiguity. As an example of the lack of clarity in the current text, draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 contains two different sub-TLVs for specifying SID/Label values in the Binding TLV. The two options are the SID/Label Sub-TLV (section 2.3) and the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV (section 2.1). The current text does not clearly explain under what circumstances the two different sub-TLVs should be used in the Binding TLV. The proposed text makes the usage clear by means of examples. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:54 AM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Chris Bowers; isis-wg@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 Uma, I agree. I think we also explicitly stated this during our meeting in Toronto (from the minutes): -------------------------------------------------------------------- Uma: Needed to reference use cases in Hannes' draft. Hannes: Perhaps what we could do is add some practical examples for RSVP, BGP, and LDP LSPs binding. Not formal use cases. Stefano: Would rather not go into applications in this ISIS draft. Peter Psenak: Should go into a separate document that could be referenced from both ISIS and OSPF. Alia Atlas: There is a SPRING WG for such a document. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, note that: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop describe the use case of the SR Mapping Server that is implemented using the Binding TLV. As you suggested, Hannes drafts can be combined so to produce a use-case document (in spring) for the Binding TLV RSVP-based use-cases. s. On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > [CC'ed Spring WG] > > I agree with what Chris said below in principle. But all this should not be obviously part of ISIS/IGP extensions WG documents.. > > Use cases for binding TLVs are explained in great details in 2 key > documents (had to shuffle through to get here) - > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-05 > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 > > IMO, both are very useful documents. > It would be good to combine both of these and publish as a "spring " document and eventually it should progress there. > AFAICT, Both ISIS and OSPF should refer the same eventually to get more clarity and use of binding TLVs described currently. > > -- > Uma C. > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Bowers > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:42 PM > To: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: [Isis-wg] comment on > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 > > All, > > The current text of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 does not clearly explain the usage of the Binding TLV for advertising LSPs created using other protocols. I would like to propose the following text to be included as section 2.5 . > > Thanks, > Chris > > ---------------- > > 2.5 Binding TLV usage examples > > This section gives examples of using the Binding TLV to advertise SID/label bindings associated with RSVP-TE, LDP, and BGP labeled-unicast LSPs. It also includes an example of advertising a context-id for egress node protection. All of the examples assume that the Binding TLV weight=1 and metric=100. > > 2.5.1 Advertising an RSVP-TE LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R1 has signaled an RSVP-TE LSP to egress router (R4) with router-id=10.4.4.4, with ER0 = (192.1.2.2 [strict], 192.2.3.2 [strict], 192.3.4.2 [strict]). R1 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=1099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, > FEC prefix=10.4.4.4 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=1099 ERO Metric sub-TLV: > metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.1.2.2 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.2.3.2 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.3.4.2 > > 2.5.2 Advertising an LDP LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R5 has learned a FEC-label binding via LDP for FEC=10.8.8.8/32. R5 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=5099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, > FEC prefix=10.8.8.8 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=5099 ERO Metric sub-TLV: > metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.8.8.8 > > 2.5.3 Advertising a BGP labeled-unicast LSP using the Binding TLV > > Assume that R9 has used BGP labeled-unicast to learn a label binding for prefix 10.15.15.15/32 with BGP next-hop=10.12.12.12. R9 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=7099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, > FEC prefix=10.15.15.15 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=7099 ERO Metric > sub-TLV: metric=100 > IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.12.12.12 > > 2.5.4 Advertising a context-id for egress node protection using the > Binding TLV > > Assume that R22 is configured in the protector role to provide egress node protection for R21 using context-id=10.0.0.21. R22 can advertise the label associated with this context-id (with label value=8099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV. > > Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=1, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, > FEC prefix=10.0.0.21 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=8099 > > ---------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
- Re: [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-r… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Chris Bowers
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)