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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 15 December 2019 08:04 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 4CC26120071 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:04:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 4O5uOgv0JhNK for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 99BBF120005 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id v18so2828023iol.2 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:04:51 -0800 (PST)
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=v0Ml578zkEUrMnhfdMrBATp2+gZFdTjlsPlrNA1yL7k=; b=IlTr+nR1ryQlcLQ7nsQXGzK6LJT2iyWAcY5mQ01SNpF+AVEym5DLG0nBg463wHu8xu 0OTVh+gqJWjgxjx1hA9Vh0e2GkP6tsVyhhZReXRQ6xsNfCTiuBBi/RxFfEodqP1Y4A4e 4A4Vdsu/E9N6RjkxRj3EFcTtdLjBh/fGgLriHbHSw57khJQlVZbGxujaqYZs4F8Y757t yUlJ2SNPGWqmchN0Xr7OsX9nrGLx/oRhYFgS4A6e3tyE4LnUVfaM34ULiDiKHSciip6z BIpTLtOqwdxoJdln3Y6BL0L+Rivx9Za95T36NrrIOsEPytTOcHjsbuePJnI5n3jxEjGn b/xg==
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=v0Ml578zkEUrMnhfdMrBATp2+gZFdTjlsPlrNA1yL7k=; b=P0Ih35hQvEp4fi6qguHt44Y1xtrQ1ffAxHqMlL9R2wKg89R02VgfhptIIMqiqtgIrt CBhNMyfZe6kYVmsaQFcGk21Md9zekDP7BT04Cac8s4/xbRFzxCmiiwd6NC2mlWW/WRjF VX8BSuRxNh45g7ITX2xRhxZM6Hvg7nlSNpiOj80f9UiHkNIh8GPW4KfAHL2McNBfYvZd gtZi38CK51FHCnoRn4NLoKl717jlUGRp0NjThGSS+yNVr1AZchjGrl3KN+LfynUzgHho VxnwOXFkFGvHjXd4s3G4l9ptZfnVjaZO8kwmBwBNWkDSuYfcnlusv/jER9FmimT7LPmF 3f0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwY5hlfhJwnVKpmM9DbL1CBg8E2x8MNtQKH6ZUw/7hwssSmuD4 xBE0UTG9FnwLGEuDhYNy6GhjOuK8fC7BSDUhbS5/VXCdlng=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqDlFxaPgxCqzJXySEDYn+a3YIIvfii4pVa9IBQT8+ymQzMmX7NWQJdwbIb+J5/vkwtZXIWjKTg3pWlsmaM1A=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c9ca:: with SMTP id z193mr13823015iof.276.1576397090792; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:04:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 03:04:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0B5vYozuw99=bmU238n8+7RqTcSJLze8DQ7rKiXGwyzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f2a4c0599b98c4e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cRhRHzvx4zO_Gmh5NuKIqcZ3vuk>
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: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 08:04:54 -0000

Spring

Does anyone know if there are plans to add RSVP PCALC path and reserve
model to both SR-TE for SR-MPLS and TI-LFA for SRv6.  That would be good so
that we can still use the benefits of MOLS TE for bandwidth management
using auto bandwidthor PCALC bandwidth management in pcep  distributed or
centralized controller model.

Warm regards,

Gyan

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 2:59 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> 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
>> <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
>
> --

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