Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Intended status of draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Gyan,
Lots of thanks for your email.

Looks as we are now in sync.

As explained in my other mail<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/K4-yldPkaKOMiChxf3CrvwCrHko/>, I see this draft as a framework document to be augmented by specific Standards Track documents defining specific solutions.

Regards,
Sasha



Regards,
Sasha

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 2:44:55 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
Cc: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Intended status of draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments


Hi Sasha

Agreed with everything you stated that the draft does not propose any extension to existing topological SIDs and no IANA requests.

So what I stated below was referring to maybe a future draft TBD to be developed  in LSR that would have an OSPF and ISIS TLV encoding for the resource segment information discussed in this daft and that possible new draft would have IANA code point and would be standards track.
Since the topological segments are advertised by IGP OSPF or ISIS, I am guessing you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes the resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF and ISIS RFCs / drafts.

Kind Regards


[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

M 301 502-1347




On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:00 AM Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Gyan, and all,
I have re-read the draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08>, but I did not find any proposals for “a new resource attributes extension encoding to existing topological SIDs”.  The draft explicitly states that it does not involve any requests to IANA.

The quoted fragment in Section 2.1 suggests that such attributes may be used (the relevant text is highlighted):

For one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs can be allocated. Each resource-aware prefix-SID may be associated with a unique <topology, algorithm> tuple, in this case different <topology, algorithm> tuples can be used to distinguish the resource-aware prefix-SIDs of the same prefix. In another case, for one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs may be associated with the same <topology, algorithm> tuple, then an additional control plane distinguisher needs to be introduced to distinguish different resource-aware prefix-SIDs associated with the same <topology, algorithm> but different groups of network resources.

But I doubt this rather vague statement justifies the draft going for  Standards Track.

Not have I found any references to the drafts with intended status Standards Track that define any protocol extensions you mention.  You may also take a look at this email<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jvKe3cmJzgC8rtdXLB3xU9Yax5E> from Acee (in the TEAS WG  mailing list) .

What, if anything, did I miss?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

From: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:02 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Intended status of draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments


Hi Jie

I understand the draft proposes an extension to existing topological SIDs to carry the resource attributes.

However since this draft proposes a new resource attributes extension encoding to existing topological SIDs I agree this should be standards track.

Since the topological segments are advertised by IGP OSPF or ISIS, I am guessing you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes the resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF and ISIS RFCs / drafts.

You could possibly mention the proposed encoding scheme and fields and that detail would be integrated into the IGP draft.

Another option would be to introduce new resource aware SIDs that is NRP centric  that would be applicable to both  SR-MPLS and SRv6 but would be independent of topological or service SID so not at that layer.  The resource SID would be associated with the BSID that binds the single or multiple candidate path to the forwarding plane and instantiates the path.  So for SR-MPLS it would be the entire label stack pushed onto the packet when the BSID is popped.  For SRv6 it would be SRH segment list associated with the candidate paths.

In this option you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes the resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF and ISIS RFCs / drafts.

The contents of the resource SID would now apply to the NRP and would be as you described, buffers, queues, bandwidth, SLO and SLE  parameters such as latency and jitter for NRP network slice.

Kind Regards


[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

M 301 502-1347



On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:39 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Sasha,

Thanks for the review and comment on this document.

Although this draft does not introduce new SR segment type/SRv6 behavior, there is change in the semantics and forwarding behavior of the resource-aware segments, as each resource-aware SIDs identifies a subset of the network resources used for packet processing.

Thus the authors consider this document belong to standard track. That said, the usage of IETF keywords in current version needs to be revisited and adjusted if needed.

Of course we would like to hear the opinions from the WG participants, and follow the decision of the WG.

Best regards,
Jie

From: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 2:16 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [spring] Intended status of draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Hello,
I have read the draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08>,  and I do not have any technical comments on it.
At the same time, I wonder why its intended status appears as “Standard Track”:
1.      The draft does not define any new mechanisms in the data plane or control plane
2.      Usage of the IETF keywords denoting requirement levels looks too vague/generic to me, e.g.
a.      The details of the underlay network MUST NOT be exposed to third parties, to prevent attacks aimed at exploiting shared network resources
b.      If there are related link advertisements, then consistency MUST be assured across that set of advertisements

IMHO and FWIW the draft describes how resource-aware forwarding can be achieved using various already-defined SR mechanisms.

Have the authors and/or the WG considered changing the intended status of the draft to “Informational”?

Regards,
Sasha



Disclaimer

This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>