IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spring] Question: Inconsistency of SR policy structure

"Chengli (IP Technology Research)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Fri, 19 October 2018 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@huawei.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 EDBE31277BB; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3pXfLZYM2gLm; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C28EA126BED; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4E864A69CE18F; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:23:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:23:56 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.70]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:23:43 +0800
From: "Chengli (IP Technology Research)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org>
CC: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Question: Inconsistency of SR policy structure
Thread-Index: AdRndBziOl2h89Q1SVKtaryHB0wLpw==
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:23:42 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB01A4DC6F@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB01A4DC6Fdggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/eYNbwDlPM05r_ND1M8a2y8HHvWU>
Subject: [spring] Question: Inconsistency of SR policy structure
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:24:03 -0000

Hi authors,

I am working on updating drafts of path segment extensions in BGP/BGP-LS:

*         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-00

*         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-00

But I found the inconsistency of SR policy structure.

  *   In https://tools.ietf.org/html//draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01>, the SR policy's structure looks like:


            SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint>
              Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
   100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
                Preference 200
                Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
                Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
              Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
   100:2.2.2.2, discriminator = 2>
                Preference 100
                Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
                Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>



So the structure is :

SR Policy

                Candidate-path p1

                                Weighted SID-list1

                                Weighted SID-list2

                Candidate-path p2

                                Weighted SID-list3

                                Weighted SID-list4


But in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-04, SR policy is described by following structure,



   SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>

   Attributes:

      Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)

         Tunnel Type: SR Policy

             Binding SID

             Preference

             Priority

             Policy Name

             Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)

             Segment List

                 Weight

                 Segment

                 Segment

                 ...

             ...

The structure is,
                SR Policy
                                SID list1
                                SID list2

Where is the candidate-path?  it seems like they are not aligned.

Thanks,
Cheng

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email