[spring] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection

"Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> Fri, 04 June 2021 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695A33A17AD for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N09W5A7q9Bdk for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BBA63A17B1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FxSDt3yNMz6S1Qv; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 00:01:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com ( by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:10:43 +0200
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( by dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 00:10:40 +0800
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 00:10:40 +0800
From: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, 'Rishabh Parekh' <rishabhp@gmail.com>
CC: "'Arvind Venkateswaran (arvvenka)'" <arvvenka@cisco.com>, "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, "'spring@ietf.org'" <spring@ietf.org>, "'Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)'" <riparekh@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [spring] 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:10:40 +0000
Message-ID: <ca9ac76001484219bbe4fbe541beae1b@huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR05MB59812099F115C3FF43CA9077D4629@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <59384be985ae4d3bb9563bed2642bff1@huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB300030B313D45266695FA702DE7E9@BYAPR11MB3000.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR05MB5981AA3B0A5E0D6DDB60F46FD47E9@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1e2ad2d64da24714bc50f64b3d39361f@huawei.com> <CABjMoXbTqmqPg6n7No1u7g3KZPFDDb8RX6CQgxZc1oWQnykTng@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB598197148CCF3C8F3C679836D44E9@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d135ba6e0fbd452391922a0f26db00b7@huawei.com> <MN2PR05MB598195F475E282394FCE2E6FD4409@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1940cc0fea6647bdb3bf6743e1edc4f6@huawei.com> <MN2PR05MB598120A50B2AF4E0FE75A38DD45F9@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <45e6f85736f145d08c430df0e3d6cb28@huawei.com> <MN2PR05MB5981071A7142D1260AC75FB5D4539@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f2e1983d56614907ba3d934ad1c073bd@huawei.com> <MN2PR05MB5981C130C3B3D31227A3D857D42B9@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR05MB56527DEC3D8B432058DC4D9CD4249@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB56527DEC3D8B432058DC4D9CD4249@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ca9ac76001484219bbe4fbe541beae1bhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/u0WM3nM9BZ6Mw8plRv2wqXO6T7c>
Subject: [spring] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection
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, 04 Jun 2021 16:10:53 -0000

Hi Jeff,
I am coming back. Please see inline comments starts with Fan1>>.

发件人: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2021年5月27日 4:26
收件人: Yangfan (IP Standard) <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>; 'Rishabh Parekh' <rishabhp@gmail.com>
抄送: 'Arvind Venkateswaran (arvvenka)' <arvvenka@cisco.com>; Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <gengxuesong@huawei.com>; 'spring@ietf.org' <spring@ietf.org>; 'Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)' <riparekh@cisco.com>
主题: RE: [spring] 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection

Hi Fan,

In this thread I’ll address another point that I deferred. I snipped unrelated text.

Zzh6> It’s important to distinguish between control plane and data plane. In data plane it is always a simple SID (replication or redundancy). In control plane (that sets up the replication/redundancy state on relevant nodes), it could be whatever.

Fan> I try to compare the two solutions redundancy protection and P2MP replication as follows, hope it can help the understandings.

Format: <solution> ,  <identifier of service> ,  <how it works>
<redundancy protection> , <Redundancy SID> ,  <service is identified by Red-SID, Red-SID triggers redundancy policy to assign candidate paths between redundancy node and merging node>
<P2MP replication> ,  <P2MP policy identifier (root-id, tree-id)> ,  <P2MP policy gives the tree structure of the P2MP service, replication segment is an atomic building block for packet replication and stays in root, bud and leaf>

Although each solution includes a SID and a SR-Policy, there are totally different mechanisms. I don’t think it is just a representation difference.

In your representation for Redundancy solution, you mentioned “candidate paths”. I would change it to “replication branches”, because “candidate paths” in SR policies have a different meaning.
Fan1>> Firstly, I don’t see much difference of candidate path either in SR policy or in Redundancy policy.

Basically, the redundancy policy would replicate incoming traffic and send them down to different paths.
Fan1>> Secondly, redundancy policy doesn’t specify the replication instruction, which is indicated by redundancy segment. Redundancy policy just extends SR policy to support more than one usable candidate path. Though it is not detailed explained in the draft, you can simply regard redundancy policy as an SR policy including two candidate paths with same preferences.

No additional replication is done downstream and this corresponds to the “Ingress Replication” concept in multicast/p2mp.
Fan1>> in our design, the headend and endpoint of redundancy protection would be the redundancy node and merging node. In terms of your solution, downstream node would be the merging node. Of course you can put elimination behavior in the other nodes behind the node at which the packets from different path actually flow to and get together, but this is how you put the redundancy protection mechanism in your solution.

For <identifier of service>, you used “redundancy SID” and “P2MP policy identifier” respectively. As I mentioned before, in the data plane both just use a SID. In the control plane (i.e., how the replication/redundancy segment is installed), the identifier could be anything for both solutions, including a SID.

For replication segment based solution, unless the replication is to more than two copies and done by a multi-level tree (node 1 replicating to node 2 and 3, and then node 2 replicating to node 4 and 5), then it is “Ingress Replication” and no different from the redundancy segment solution.

BTW, P2MP policy (with tree identification, candidate paths, set of leaves, etc.) are really just control plane information on the root. It does not give the tree structure either. Instead, the entire replication tree are just concatenated replication segments on root, leaves and intermediate replication nodes. The intermediate replication nodes are optional (i.e., Ingress Replication), and in that case there is no difference from the redundancy segment.

Fan1>> From data plane perspective, replication segment and redundancy segment share the replication instruction, differ from whether to encap FI and SN at the same time. I will leave this FI,SN adding discussion to another email thread.
However, from control plane perspective, two solutions are quite different on how redundancy protection service is provided. Since redundancy protection is more likely used in unicast scenario, (it can be used for multicast, but let’s leave it to a separate thread), it doesn’t make sense to extend BGP MVPN attribute for a unicast redundancy protection service.

Again, I don’t argue the possibility of using replication segment and P2MP policy as one solution to provide redundancy protection. We provide our approach to achieve redundancy protection. Replication segment is just the second approach. But I don’t believe the saying that the approach A is the approach B. Actually, both of them can the solutions to provide redundancy protection. I even think we can collaborate on this topic. What do you think? ☺



Juniper Business Use Only