Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Arkadiy,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

But I am still not convinced about a separate RP-SID. All I see that is
necessary is here is that PE1 realizes that PE2 has a different Anycast
Group-ID (200 in this case) and then it has to prune the path from SPF
results accordingly. Like mentioned before this seems to me a plain case of
Policy-based Routing/Backup-Selection. This can be achieved in any of the
following ways..

1. Using Separate anycast-SIDs.. one per plane..
2. Or using Node-admin tags to color each of these planes separately..

Both the above can be used in conjunction Policy-based
Routing/Backup-path-selection to achieve what  is being desired here...

Thanks
-Pushpasis


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:54 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Pushpasis,
>
> Please review attached file that depicts high level difference as it
> applies to dual plane use case. Currently, there is no solution available
> to support optimized loosed path per plane with *no fallback* to
> alternative plane if the plane is partitioned.
>
> Thanks
>
> Arkadiy
>
>
>
> *From:* Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:33 PM
> *To:* Shraddha Hegde
> *Cc:* Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); [e-mail]; Gulko, Arkadiy
> (Financial&Risk)
>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] New Version Notification for
> draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Shraddha,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephano/Pushpasis,
>
> Anycast segments provide loose separation of routing planes. If there is a
> failure, traffic running over anycast segment is allowed
> To failover to different plane. The requirement, this draft tries to
> address is the strict routing plane separation. Certain application traffic
> Should be restricted to one plane even in case of failure and never cross
> over to the other plane.
>
> [Pushpasis] Does this not seem to fit requirements of Policy-Based
> Routing/Policy-Based-Backup-Selection?
>
>
>
>
> I'll add a reference to anycast segments and details of how this is
> different from anycast SID in the next revision.
>
> [Pushpasis] It will be great if you can add a diagram to illustrate the
> difference. Maybe I am missing something here :(
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Pushpasis
>
>
>
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:42 PM
> To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [spring] New Version Notification for
> draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
>
> Hi Pushpasis,
>
> I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the
> required protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp
> drafts, we already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been
> done.
>
> s.
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> > First I must admit that I have not read the entire draft in details...
> >
> > But from the abstract it seems that for the problem that this draft is
> trying to address, a similar problem is already addressed in the Segment
> Routing Problem Statement and Use-Case document (RFC 7855, section
> 3.3.1.1.1. Disjointness in Dual-Plane Networks). And the same has been
> solved using any cast segments as specified in draft-ietf-spring-mpls-
> anycast-segment.
> >
> > Request you to clarify why we need the solution proposed in this draft
> over the one proposed in draft-ietf-mpls-anycast-segments..
> >
> > Thanks and Best regards,
> > -Pushpasis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > New draft submitted for "separating routing planes using segment
> routing".
> > Looking for inputs and comments.
> >
> > PS: The draft erroneously got submitted as individual and not affiliated
> to any WG but the intention was to submit it to SPRING WG.
> > We will correct it once the submission window opens. Apologies for the
> inconvenience.
> >
> > Rgds
> > Shraddha
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:57 PM
> > To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; Arkadiy Gulko <
> [e-mail]>
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-
> planes-using-sr-00.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> >
> > Name:           draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr
> > Revision:       00
> > Title:          Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing
> > Document date:  2017-03-13
> > Group:          Individual Submission
> > Pages:          7
> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulkohegde-
> routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dgulkohegde-2Drouting-2Dplanes-2Dusing-2Dsr-2D00.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=SfDbR-u1zr_bGaI3a4Z_qEQAOL3sPnevtBDsGfCG97U&e=>
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dgulkohegde-2Drouting-2Dplanes-2Dusing-2Dsr_&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=_9kqi_RL2GoWxwwI_n3VvzoJmXv0hA9GFVx9ukTZEFE&e=>
> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gulkohegde-routing-
> planes-using-sr-00
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dgulkohegde-2Drouting-2Dplanes-2Dusing-2Dsr-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=n75iCPw3hyV297zf1sbYYtBMe_NixFirhgG2jGtCYjw&e=>
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    Many network deployments arrange the network topologies in two or
> >    more planes.  The traffic generally uses one of the planes and fails
> >    over to the other plane when there are link or node failure.  Certain
> >    applications require the traffic to be strictly restricted to a
> >    particular plane and should not failover to the other plane.  This
> >    document proposes a solution for the strict planar routing using
> >    Segment Routing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=ZDvFVzoZZoETR5ITncbxO6DhgsV-9u9Z6sG3PceekRA&e=>
> .
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=OMIkn_KWEqu2FZrDhknxuWKSn9TP5KRloCTL98iMh4g&e=>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=JA6g2ZDvIPLQHZqHQByKQq-jvOcxu4cQskARppQFqZc&m=-Ov_b1p-pRQOnYT8vSOezy9aO_1j01TWgsPELKNTYsc&s=OMIkn_KWEqu2FZrDhknxuWKSn9TP5KRloCTL98iMh4g&e=>
>
>
>