[spring] Re: [mpls] SR-MPLS address space aggregation

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 31 July 2024 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 32C9FC14F686 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tcEhwPwx9Ghu for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC78DC14F75F for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5a108354819so8393393a12.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1722419823; x=1723024623; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5q2KZC3G1p76Y3nsrLXiruZI+9Jj1g+DD6sDfsgb/Ws=; b=dqF8hfkHTFv1Hs6blNoGDbefSNzv7dc4juVAOrp26ImJVFMek85ECou7hSrRkWXn+n 5Rhdj0h3+KVlqYpTL/biOcKlYpnsFCw98tRshGpnGzEvqO5vIAgpgrkCcjb3C5Wt8+BF CTyeXdSI6i+4L4AXPCZeP73BiO+sQl4oxD507nRpmxx3EaT6R7HiEBFPvUgCwrTn5V5Z FezN2F6gqYUP0nDe+CEOiMEwNyeSnQ1D1skmbC19SyzU9iTwcR+CdxxZw6uNeGpDxbWd bU69NlVRuaY5lU16MXkBlGQDJpj8dnz3uB7WMDhpTPt+AZGPysGgHzalOb7yrd6x6VUR pSdg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722419823; x=1723024623; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5q2KZC3G1p76Y3nsrLXiruZI+9Jj1g+DD6sDfsgb/Ws=; b=NFen49IQG0MOKpX4WW9Rki/vAjcrSIaoz37+L8zOr9JmH+0160aNQbghv0dHSpvK8A PKNvBgQ7Q0lt6wXccj/zJ4Yr2WVdaCi6I4hyxPE5PfXSf30bwxbpG4qTiOhPkTNQZYOd vmYqD1yQSJR7sFT6Fd3zoKm7Xej7QcgguBePJMTD6kmCUnoC+mU/ZxP54FI8sUcFTCnK l6gxd2J+jP1w5O8rFJW1ah96gu1GS1cJosRQDvwrRC8Uw5DzCBhNRhfXxASoHsnfKwYO cJA1TAaCFcCasLvHg+++T21WNZfhKUgSq+h5K3OtOKzStq7+wOpzZqWqXufE9ZNdTaVI 6sLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzKQsOcdzUVaL4y0ru/Hb/qssWHO/+BY+QneMvAZku3AxEhm67G /wArG19V1ndhtMxjP4Z6nW4EJTytONp1dbYitaqyzwPpRJuuSjn/0KeCC1epNMWVGsPDo8pP3uB 8HJgeQ4xUpsxfN3GMGrp0K5Gjo5YqypL4RfyQWQhQJOQpFyKhKHE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGa2d3Dbkt5DSG+oW16JGWQS8xOA3k7e59YdoaarzDUfdPiPqZr2h9zRoCMbH+o/V4Dzlyqn7ItTrfm0IOcWZE=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d6d4:0:b0:58b:9561:650b with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5b021d21cd1mr8758461a12.25.1722419822086; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3595aa0167da4c7a8b3fe6a26fd4175e@huawei.com> <94d80db1-79b8-4359-80fc-92423b12c6b5@pi.nu> <dafe98a17dd44da88df4292d741a0663@huawei.com> <dfa76c313b1046b1b7e7e67155b84f19@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <dfa76c313b1046b1b7e7e67155b84f19@huawei.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:56:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFmtfy2UapMckD9RbNUcrHaopayMkixeNtdKOExF_k=gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a66677061e881d02"
Message-ID-Hash: A6FGNECXU7DP72M6IHAW4KD4B435URTQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: A6FGNECXU7DP72M6IHAW4KD4B435URTQ
X-MailFrom: robert@raszuk.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: [mpls] SR-MPLS address space aggregation
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fXIjLay_vrLE7sh_2_cAdpLYhy8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>

Hi,

What is the real operational value to depart from MPLS label exact match
data plane paradigm into longest match if the latter has been operating
fine with IPv4 for decades ? And aggregation in IPv4 comes for free.

IPv4 encapsulation has also been around for decades and it works in line
rate across most of the hardware. And 32 bits (from RFC1918) is clearly
more then 20 bits of MPLS label.

As example - say to get source routing one could use GRE. The
original rfc1701 had space in the header to add routing hops. Sure rfc2890
removed the R bit, but to resurrect this is just one page draft and zero
data plane change to accomplish IPv4 address stacking and SRv4.

I understand some people may not like IPv6, but the delta between new to be
introduced MPLS aggregation, and massive data plane change vs IPv4
forwarding seems IMO not worth the cost and effort.

Kind regards,
Robert


On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:01 AM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear MPLS chairs,
> It is for sure possible to do what I proposed but is it really needed?
> We have heard very loud complaints that "aggregation is a big value".
> I propose to vote on this topic (after long enough discussion): "Does it
> make sense to do a major MPLS upgrade to support aggregation? The primary
> challenge is the upgrade of the data plane engine to support the longest
> match"
> I do not have a clue how the vote finished. The loud people may not be the
> majority.
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vasilenko Eduard
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 11:24
> To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>; spring@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [mpls] SR-MPLS address space aggregation
>
> ESPL is after XL. XL is in the smallest byte.
> Hence, not affected.
>
> I am sure, there could be other problems after careful investigation.
> But if aggregation and hierarchy are a value, then the MPLS label has
> enough bits for it.
> Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 11:15
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; spring@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] SR-MPLS address space aggregation
>
> Eduard,
>
> Have you considered if RFC 7274 and RFC 9017 has any impact on this?
>
> /Loa
>
> Den 2024-07-31 kl. 09:36, skrev Vasilenko Eduard:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > SRv6 has an advantage in address space aggregation. What if to add the
> > same functionality to SR-MPLS? Something like:
> >
> > /SR-MPLS SID MAY be constructed hierarchically from the IPv4 or IPv6
> > loopback node addresses./
> >
> > /The smallest byte of the MPLS label SHOULD be left for functions
> > reserved by IANA: Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
> > Label Values (iana.org)
> > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/mpls-label-values.
> > xhtml>./
> >
> > /Any number of bits between X and Y from the IP address MAY be copied
> > to the Node SID bits from 32-8-(X-Y) to 8./
> >
> > /Alternatively, Node SIDs MAY be hierarchically assigned manually or
> > with the help of a management system, the last byte should be still
> > reserved for other MPLS functions./
> >
> > /It makes sense to do it only for global SIDs, local SIDs may continue
> > to be random/consecutive/whatever. The global and local SIDs
> > separation may be signaled by bit 7 of the SID./
> >
> > //
> >
> > 24 bits (16,777,216) would be probably enough for any infrastructure
> > domain.
> >
> > SRv6 is often pushed with 16-bit compressed labels. 24 bits is a
> > bigger scale – it has a higher probability of being enough.
> >
> > Then Metro could signal only aggregated SID to the Backbone and vice
> > versa.
> >
> > Of course, the longest match MPLS forwarding should be enabled in this
> > case, i.e. IPv4 machinery should be reused for MPLS labels.
> >
> > Hence, it is a major MPLS upgrade, comparable to the MNA initiative.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Eduard Vasilenko
> >
> > Senior Architect
> >
> > Network Algorithm Laboratory
> >
> > Tel: +7(985) 910-1105
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org
>
> --
> Loa Andersson
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting
> loa@pi.nu
> loa.pi.nu.@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org
>