Re: [spring] draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14: Post convergence path

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 26 July 2021 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 D34543A0D4C for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.738
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.738 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, 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 Q8SrzJWZN4Vn for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 8EDFC3A0D4A for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id l4so12526232wrs.4 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Af7NAHr4R6LUscUv+wRetQfDen3Q29/4uw9HtJtQdxw=; b=UGy2N8YdYMPLnAwfhy4sZ//CFDIW0zY4yahcQOvbOBSup1bs0qLtjoC9+OiALbN6cD fHqHyrlb7dF7cOj/SfBk4bXPrcEWgNaNPyhFAIdPVlyPLItopmMe67ISxbFPifCQTXkZ 6SmhlXyQyf7WYPpy51DEIBKntKYq15y43mfM8+J+xrozwVqSHT19zYY/U6o9xwdbXATP Xcoz1lp4kl9/8pudrD6MUDVI2ru0w2I5e0PSuITM8hLC7mEa3sC1jiz9Hp9G5NW/kIHy tfUyJWZnr/i+9ZyCVD97C5gn0ZpKWIz3Nv4eVUmWooCC1/wCV4A6XrHRsHhnQzxl36sB oWbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Af7NAHr4R6LUscUv+wRetQfDen3Q29/4uw9HtJtQdxw=; b=ba5XprmHdAY7cs4m3hmUz36cHgOxhFCQX0rJ9YovDzDu2q1cme3IpKK5D5hq3rqJAr w/zJ/Qez1XrcX55x/R/DqDgyDgm74nckbb2qfVhX+mBGWrYJaxJHSl5Viy3kFgoeoWHk cGDDsuebRS2RF63a9HWEJ9QBhZ0ZwUVubH87bLe1Ygnj7O6UEVM6GKQTIbsFISP5P95k 0DltlZOEElrdRSA4ReLaTPsyCzdh/QRKB0JHU5IsDpuvsP4Fq8qbX7wOM+iNukXFeY+m +XaBoHVnSBMdpQZ85757hsEBoQwqhCrDvlR6jUBVsx2UPJOEkehbHUafMPOXSxBQZeep YY+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533g/NVRMSC+OSHH/nhZjp4J4bW8S4gwLeaRzI0c+ETAwBEIob+U GGYu9LaJEZL5Z0NVgpLriMc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjX6aePJOBEJ5mlVthLKCm5He2TyoYBWfWkgEybxloZIC2I2pNWQvXVZuwiLtlQHbbgA+wnA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:526a:: with SMTP id l10mr17311861wrc.40.1627330971475; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.8.103] ([185.69.145.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n8sm853442wrx.46.2021.07.26.13.22.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <9ED31CBB-4912-408E-8A1C-C020D69B284A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDD45386-44F0-43D8-97B6-79447283F046"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:22:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR05MB35762DAB8014B24A782F5012D5E89@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <CY4PR05MB35762DAB8014B24A782F5012D5E89@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/lragGtMwjAnL1ZSAlxfbVpicsJg>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14: Post convergence path
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, 26 Jul 2021 20:22:59 -0000

Isn’t the point about TI-LFA that it re-routes on the post convergence path to avoid micro-loops. 

When you overestimate the failure to provide node protection even though the failure was not a node failure, the repair path may not be congruent with the post convergence path in which case you need to understand if micro loops will form in the specific topology for the specific failure.

- Stewart

> On 26 Jul 2021, at 21:16, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> WG,
>  
> Regarding Peter’s comment on the mic that TI-LFA can divert from post convergence path when SRLG
> is used for computation I would like to clarify that an operator is expected to do
> planning for the post convergence path accounting for the SRLG failures.
>  
> draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14 is proposing a mechanism which will
> divert the traffic based on nodes being upgraded to support the protection. The paths
> could be quite divergent from post-convergence path and an operator would be expected
> to do planning to ensure these paths have sufficient bandwidth to take on traffic.
>  
> Rgds
> Shraddha
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>