Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution

Uma -

We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) - as the sections you have quoted clearly state.

Why? Because we need consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane. From forwarding perspective it matters not whether the SID was advertised by protocol instance #1 or #2 or by an SRMS. What matters is that the SID I use to determine what label I install in my forwarding plane is the same SID that my neighbors will use. Otherwise forwarding will be broken.

   Les

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:31 PM
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

Dear Authors,

Have few comments on the draft:

1.
        As I indicated during meeting - I am not sure why we have to club  verification of SIDs advertised through regular protocol reachability
                prefixes and the ranges advertised through 'Mapping Server'  (SRMS). I didn't see any compelling reason to do this.
                 SIDs advertised through reachability prefixes doesn't have ranges unlike SRMS advertisements.
                 As SRMS advertisements are primarily for nodes which are not SR capable and  I feel we should not mix this with nodes which are SR capable.

        This isolation helps restricting the resolution work primarily for multiple SRMS entries advertised through one node or multiple nodes.
                SRMS advertisements are indeed little bit unique in that you are advertising "configuration" on behalf of node X from node Y
                with ranges (both prefix ranges and SID ranges).

2.
                Regarding  the scope of conflict resolution:

       Section 1

           "   The problem to be addressed is protocol independent i.e., segment
         related advertisements may be originated by multiple nodes using
         different protocols and yet the conflict resolution MUST be the same
         on all nodes regardless of the protocol used to transport the
         advertisements."

        Section 3.2.8
          "   o  In cases where multiple routing protocols are in use mapping
      entries advertised by all routing protocols MUST be included."

      This sounds like we are seeking to resolve conflicting entries outside and across the protocols?
      Each IGP has separate mechanism for advertising mapping entry and I this is not clear with the current version of the draft how we can cross verify SID/Prefix conflict across  the protocol.
     Can you clarify this?

--
Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM
To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

> From:  bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51
> AM
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has
> been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution.
> Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not
> limited to whether or not you support adoption.

We will end the call on April 29, 2016.

> Thanks,
>
> --John and Bruno
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> _____
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring