Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 22 March 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 9480D3A07F5 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 HAE8LXuDqrt8 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 E96C13A07EB for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id c19so12067962ioo.6 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b1CmviVTWh96hMwD3aRF1zFTiLI0T4QcTzQni4CEmO4=; b=MM4s5YTloWcmJ1oR6ibfp66uJO/0RzfJ7eThSpiLy1w1uz6ZHFApMxiG5w2M2qaQen 3LkfdsPA4K1idg5Thq1w7YGo8XLXzxaTGJZWf3lGhcDACquh2ODK5XncW8t460HqZ4df c3TpUC9+kuh764CRfDN0cauHHKZ8sinjD+r1QTtS4VMotAmKsDu6uXrGBDZoEzDsZRtE 3WwKdzplsrC3QUv8++YB1FvsSWBmUCm1wp38SKWJA0QxnuZXbxXTRFl8ZnEoAh8MnWUc m8C62GI4X54SxvMtNqWvSROInrAd99o1/LQBrGj0OMxXqAmyQMJ4wLP++YWB97USg9bp AkJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b1CmviVTWh96hMwD3aRF1zFTiLI0T4QcTzQni4CEmO4=; b=VVx0UGmXNGAuawRyBFFnZRdu0r3puX1wzXqToDqbDCfSOGsc5RdY7ccGsLo0TT3FqN OU18fSXxdgfWrrtyixJU9sOhX01MkcFsylvwryJ6v6QQKba5ZiB/G2habd/I6kqqdlOF raNgGJbqxh8dvrLSfVY0qhZPtMQ3SzZKVdl8POuAje55ihr0Xf62+GnPkrT3yEFEb83F 6/eqqjNyiyqFokYEIeZQXruaBrPQUBtQoNUhXQyp8qbhnC9I+Cu3lnVwRonxbjELIoko 4iZXT/kMXDp7PhiUET0HtsVbL4ZFxHtufiV+HIv1iK01Z3PbR3kM1Jishf7h2nKRtfC+ 2Dkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2cjtgWBqhlrphmpdBFQtymyxUZE4xykahR4Yrr3FXvUl3qpsPm w8ONfxCu5Jef98pfWK9ZbG3f8ccxwjGUrfd7oXs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vs+t6FYnanOVQws8Rb78PNgSutedDqvSMYhsW6sihhxENRJzl8+Kt0dV7Zvlg9cb4abkWebqVRR91xcXKcWtGg=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:9183:: with SMTP id p3mr17177130jag.55.1584909926993; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV1rMiM61yhfA-i=+VcdZVGiqW31nj6qL_1NYxOdgatXAw@mail.gmail.com> <CABjMoXaVTmtwhEWmDNDPTNtn6B1kvU5DxqJL8xAD8bCgth7P4w@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3FGVUT4Fn6UR8Db7nGa1aQEOm+Mt6kTEBLr3ixNmhHrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABjMoXbyQaUisDN_4umgp3aWK7mGNX_wtL9eY=tYX=3S+fO3OQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABjMoXbyQaUisDN_4umgp3aWK7mGNX_wtL9eY=tYX=3S+fO3OQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:45:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1fwOP92Ure9gTJLCZbVoOMgZiQrsbS=Bxa6LNq+Mmf3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, "Voyer, Daniel" <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000033138205a177991a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Z3KZ0PBZ5UzlsT1NvZ6jlfHRsO0>
Subject: Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT
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: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:45:32 -0000

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:22 PM Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> >The SR replication segment tree sid draft states that it can only be used
> for PCE centralized controller model.
> >I am guessing BIER maybe an option?
>
> Strictly speaking, BIER is not SR dataplane, but yes it is an option.


    So BIER technically can be used with SR but has its own BIFT forwarding
table.  Understood.

For the WG question I posed is that if LDP is eliminated from SP core and
you don’t want to use RSVP-TE and BIER is not yet available and SR
replication tree SID draft can only be used if a centralized PCE is
utilized what alternatives or options does the operators have?

Also if PCE is configured on SR source node in a hybrid model and BGP
prefix SID is advertise by PCC elements in IGP via BGP LS propagation would
that be an option for SR-MPLS multicast P2MP and MP2MP LMDTs?

>
>
> Any other options for operators?
>
> LDP with RFC 7473 can be used just for mLDP LSPs.
>

So in the case where you have LDP still enabled in the core and have
SR-PREFER configured so all L3 vpn unicast traffic is using SR-MPLS
forwarding plane - so then for multicast to work to use mLDP data plane
this draft and what you are saying for that to work is you have to
configure a knob to disable FEC root prefix lsp.  Not sure how that would
work as that mldp fec binding for mLDP core p-tree gloabal is PSMI/UI/MI/S
MVPN instantiation of the tree how would that even work.

There is some XR knob I am missing to get this working and is key for any
mLDP MVPN profiles Verizon will be using.



6.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7473#section-6.4>.  Disabling
Prefix-LSPs on an mLDP-only Session

   Assume that LSR1 and LSR2 have formed an LDP session to exchange mLDP
   state only.  In typical deployments, LSR1 and LSR2 also exchange
   bindings for IP (unicast) prefixes upon mLDP session, which is
   unnecessary and wasteful for an mLDP-only LSR.

   Using the procedures defined earlier, an LSR can indicate its
   disinterest in Prefix-LSP application state to its peer upon session
   establishment time or dynamically later via an LDP capabilities
   update.

   In reference to Section 3.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7473#section-3.1>, the peer disables
the advertisement of
   any state related to IP Prefix FECs, but it still advertises IP
   address bindings that are required for the correct operation of mLDP.




>
> -Rishabh
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:11 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank you Rishabh!
> >
> > I will contact you regarding Cisco specific questions.
> >
> > The questions apply to multicast support with SR-MPLS and are not vendor
> specific however I am using Cisco as an example.
> >
> > From a IETF standards perspective, I believe the one question that this
> thread is related is with multicast  SR-MPLS support use case where you are
> migrated to SR-MPLS and LDP has been removed from the SP core.
> >
> > In this customer use case where the customer does not want to use RSVP
> TE or IR due to replication processing overhead in a distributed model what
> options are available for multicast support.
> >
> > The SR replication segment tree sid draft states that it can only be
> used for PCE centralized controller model.
> >
> > I am guessing BIER maybe an option?
> >
> > Any other options for operators?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Gyan
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 1:49 PM Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gyan,
> >> These questions are implementation specific and should be addressed
> >> off the mailing list. Please contact me at riparekh@cisco.com.
> >>
> >> -Rishabh
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:41 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Daniel & Authors
> >> >
> >> > I had a question related to the draft related to lab POC testing.
> >> >
> >> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment/
> >> >
> >> > In the draft it states that SR replication using Tree SID to
> replication to leafs on a tree is only supported with a centralized PCE
> controller based model using BGP LS.
> >> >
> >> > I have an SR-MPLS Cisco VIRL POC test bed using XRV9000 nodes 7.0.1
> using ISIS SR extensions where I have L3 vpn overlay and everything is
> working very well from a unicast perspective.  No issues.
> >> >
> >> > I have LDP still enabled but via “SR-Prefer” am using SR-MPLS
> forwarding plane.  I kept LDP enabled so I can use mLDP for LMDT label
> switched trees for multicast and technically that all MVPN procedures RFC
> 6513 6514 encap tunnel types should work for p-tree using mLDP forwarding
> plane for multicast while SR-MPLS is being used for unicast..
> >> >
> >> > I can get the LMDT core tree default and data mdt to build for MP2MP
> or P2MP tree but cannot get on the FEC root the MRIB state to build.  Not
> sure why?
> >> >
> >> > Any ideas.  Is there anything special I have to do for multicast to
> use the ldp mLDP extension data plane and not the SR-MPLS data plane.
> >> >
> >> > I think what’s happening is at the data plane forwarding level
> SR-MPLS data plane is being used instead of mLDP.
> >> >
> >> > I have a bunch of SR-TE policies in place with candidate dynamic and
> static ERO paths and that works well coloring the VRF steering.
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering if I can use SR-TE binding Sid with Static ERO loose
> path using prefix SID of egress PE to replicate to and build P2MP tree
> instantiation via SR-TE.
> >> >
> >> > Is that possible?
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards
> >> >
> >> > Gyan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Gyan  Mishra
> >> >
> >> > Network Engineering & Technology
> >> >
> >> > Verizon
> >> >
> >> > Silver Spring, MD 20904
> >> >
> >> > Phone: 301 502-1347
> >> >
> >> > Email: gyan.s..mishra@verizon.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > spring mailing list
> >> > spring@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> >
> > --
> >
> > Gyan  Mishra
> >
> > Network Engineering & Technology
> >
> > Verizon
> >
> > Silver Spring, MD 20904
> >
> > Phone: 301 502-1347
> >
> > Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> >
> >
> >
>
-- 

Gyan  Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Phone: 301 502-1347

Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com