Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.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 ECA7F120045 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:15 -0800 (PST)
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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Bm5SOAsvZb1g for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (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 237AC120043 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id az3so5161508plb.11 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=YW/ZmUQn05HHSBx+vpO0J9DX38hJAXlaMZzv1olPyJY=; b=VvS4gRb5dolRS7vpMjxX4Xn0MPCqbfSnlY7YDGN1jZs5qOD1mcTLN+nXGSzV/0W6cP cRUpR8AvkFs4YzP/G/yXgO56rGZ8Cn39a76v5CwBe9hx25yJ4tYreQFWdJQe8qIUYjnK gOxu/vPkJLugAvYqJpwHg2ROECMuMqVU9NbKUnbiT7dLqWyTj5ytLQhqsWeExhQuKXWp eSRgPmns+bdsfkUmxsAVkOblN0OFL0Brqm3tVc2ZZA83CCBglb72lZVl1nYT6TOsgvGU vzaFNhObBE5nikYCYnQvHAAoyeFZ9h1bpQ9vlC7syZgseZZjgvEyCm6HMOtNIj1Orb9Y n4cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=YW/ZmUQn05HHSBx+vpO0J9DX38hJAXlaMZzv1olPyJY=; b=IlIKcjjwGpIx1c2v+XPBygaEk96k6xmn7NBSwj2WcMi410UmgQNl+KoI3KNHdLSnqE //JyD4TMv0oR21ceWdRaWvMxhAqdOJ7VphIvUsnmGpoWFLKib7dUh6tfQodg+iD4fosJ NbYV6LoZgPVeX1oxaSuG+3ni/bH5B/QqMiycpmwsWXq5AJfyqrBhVmv3NGcl+75Na1LE pi5f48OtkL/A53rpl3cB1y5JmKbQhbWGAH22Of0nlxuXEneZVoMCL4Floog4i5V6cDWy tnM/G0J+zY+0PdBNyvf8lhQ4sqOyfglE+15voP/r+sZ0g+NycF8MDK3M+xCGLp78dP80 EgKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsWSgKSP50YAubitD7vqeWeXzs/k3Hus49Fq+7MSM7C5HLgyNk Eyy+jrm1MzEvDXEQnxZaaEccgtmb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxvWWGdeNf4YVsuIUWs0olNxMTEnEYJsahFZ7e0u89BKtKHwl0rTQbyFM7ZHP2Iu3zHmzUqyA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7bc3:: with SMTP id d3mr2397189pjl.86.1576538352432; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.5.194] ([50.235.77.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k21sm23921377pgt.22.2019.12.16.15.19.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:19:05 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Message-ID: <c8967bfb-5a8e-447d-8e28-314820764f13@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN3QBScGjeL=yDSW3AOXZrVTGA-czbY2qDrOMQ=gDxAd4d=nYQ@mail.gmail.com> <38b14bf5-b6d9-4d46-ad1d-d26d3376df51@Spark> <CAN3QBSf2Kpu3Pd_FYmA7BCHJ=uWu9DnEEaYdQwGDDs26NmbJQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: c8967bfb-5a8e-447d-8e28-314820764f13@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5df810ee_c4c3af_872b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZAbHDFu7JmmA4nqMTJcN5kkxcDo>
Subject: Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:19:16 -0000

Gyan,

MSD is only relevant for a device that either imposes the label stack (head-end) or manipulates it (BSID anchor). There are some other constrains when it comes to entropy labels and ERLD, please read the respective drafts.
In general, SID stack would grow when TE is in use (any time you need to use additional SID to deviate from SPT), another case is when additional SID’s are used for services on the nodes, other than the tail-end.
That’s why we've designed MSD to be very flexible to accommodate all the different use cases, it is upto computational logic to decide how to deal with different constrains (MSD types)

Cheers,
Jeff

P.S. you might want to see the NANOG MSD presentation I did some time ago.
https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG71/1424/20171004_Tantsura_The_Critical_Role_v1.pdf
On Dec 14, 2019, 11:59 PM -0800, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>, wrote:
> Jeff
>
> With SR-MPLS with SR-TR let’s say if you use cSPF snd don’t have an ERO strict explicit path defined or is a loose path, then the for the cSPF would the transport labels be 1.  For loose would also be 1 also.  If the path were explicit defined to egress PE and was 7 hops from ingress to egress then transport would be 6.  And if L3 vpn service sid was signaled that would be 1 vpn label.
>
> Let me know if I have that right.
>
> In Nats scenario for IPv6 he has 3 vpnv6 labels.
>
> Why is that?
>
> With both SR-MPLS and SRv6 the L3 vpn AFI/SAFI MBGP services overlay single label sits on top off SR as if does today with MPLS so why 3 vpn labels.
>
> So with this draft with BGP-LS and BMI-MSD you can flood into the IGP the SID depth so all the nodes along the SR-TE path don’t go over the maximum which would result in an error.
>
> If you set your MTU high enough in the core like 9216, does that overcome the SID depth issues with SR-TE?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Gyan
>
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:43 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote:
> > > Hi, Jeff.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the BMI-MSD reference. If I understand correctly:
> > >
> > > BMI-MSD = Transport Label Depth + Service Label Depth
> > > Only former can be utilized by SR-TE policies.
> > >
> > > Currently do we have any method to determine the composition of BMI?
> > > We need to know the transport label depth when doing service route per-destination steering.
> > >
> > > This problem arises when trying to steer a plain IPv4 route and a VPN service route into the same SR-TE policy that exceeds the transport label depth of the service route. I'm trying to figure out the standard behavior in this case since the headend we use currently produces some interesting results.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Nat.
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:42 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Nat,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491#section-5
> > > > > Currently defined MSD types are:
> > > > > 1: BMI
> > > > > 2: ERLD
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically to BMI:
> > > > > Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels that can be imposed, including all service/transport/special labels.
> > > > > The answer to your question is 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jeff
> > > > > On Dec 13, 2019, 3:42 AM -0800, Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>rg>, wrote:
> > > > > > Hello, SPRING WG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do we deal with an SR-TE policy headend with different MSDs for different types of traffic?
> > > > > > For example, a headend H can impose:
> > > > > > 6 transport labels for plain IPv4 packets;
> > > > > > 5 transport labels + 1 IPv6 ExpNull label for plain IPv6 packets;
> > > > > > 3 transport labels + 3 VPN  labels for VPN packets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) For a plain IPv4 route R4 and a VPN route Rv both steered into the SR-TE policy P1 with SID list <S1, S2, S3, S4, S5>, what will H perform in this situation?
> > > > > > b) What is the MSD of H? 6, 5 or 3?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Nat.
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > spring mailing list
> > > > > > spring@ietf.org
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > spring mailing list
> > > spring@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> --
> Gyan S. Mishra
> IT Network Engineering & Technology
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
> 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
> United States
> Phone: 301 502-1347
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant
>