IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Is TI-LFA compatible with the default SR algorithm?

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 14 June 2018 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 06434131163; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.795, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 wohBZdW_l1eZ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 305F4131165; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.226.53.55] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-2.bemta.az-c.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id 46/29-14326-594722B5; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:58:45 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrKJsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsViIr2lQndqiVK 0wZ87PBZdL1+wWXzqecFiceHNb2aL4xd+M1p83fuQ1eLUg0QHNo+ds+6yeyxZ8pPJo+XZSbYA 5ijWzLyk/IoE1ozetvPMBc8dK05d7GZpYPxm3cXIxcEisIhZYu/98+wgjpDAFCaJmbd3MkM4j xklZs1cBORwcrAJ2EpsWn2XDcQWEdCVWPPrNRtIEbPAJmaJNccvgyWEBRwkft3sZYEocpSY3n uBCcJ2k/h6fiJYnEVAVWJn905GEJtXIEHixowfjFDbmCTOPzkK5HBwcAJtW/tPBKSGUUBM4vu pNWBzmAXEJW49mQ9mSwgISCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HytEfZLE/acLGSHiihIz7s1hh7BlJS7N7wbb JSGwjUliYscUqEGGEsdX7mcG2SshoCyx5UUshOkrse2dEET5WUaJW1vns0GU60i0T1/MCmHnS 7T1P4G6oVpix9kHLBC2nMSq3ocsEM37mSWO7TwO1SAjMWX/DWaIxHI2iSsLz7FMYNSdheQ5CD tPYsKN62A2r4CgxMmZT1gg4joSC3Z/YoOwtSWWLXzNDGOfOfCYCVl8ASP7KkaLpKLM9IyS3MT MHF1DAwNdQ0MjXSMDQ10jU1O9xCrdZL3UUt3y1OISXUO9xPJiveLK3OScFL281JJNjMBkxwAE OxgffUs+xCjJwaQkyqtwVTFaiC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjDAeHkgSvXrFStJBgUWp6akVaZ g4w7cKkJTh4lER4C4uA0rzFBYm5xZnpEKlTjJYch95P6WHmOAcmj12e1sMsxJKXn5cqJc77Cq RBAKQhozQPbhwsN1xilJUS5mUEOlCIpyC1KDezBFX+FaM4B6OSMK8hyFU8mXklcFtfAR3EBHT Q0aMKIAeVJCKkpBoYA2f93J/Y91vr+mpHRh8Gv6uXv63WLpWq9S3SCq2bO7fidJDwm9yt71rX bO/QeH7k6NLmJO/Lx7P134izCO5W9vi/YPudrm+iv95+f1bEnunq/kZO/v6ubftOzlM5dubu1 NPv+c7JR3XpdrvrHzIXTniQ8iZcJfyy1++SphdM/5We6vnHyRg6KLEUZyQaajEXFScCAGU4ky wIBAAA
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-20.tower-307.messagelabs.com!1528984722!2597301!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.27.180.120]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.9.15; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 10611 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 13:58:44 -0000
Received: from us-west-2c.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.27.180.120) by server-20.tower-307.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 13:58:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=vqJdpS2zVmIlKMIFrK3tPcKsyeestOGnzGEicnM5Ebo=; b=ARWtCnptudYZ7WV8UFsrScyvRpeEoJ2DRJYIonx45tCmNl6OgeKdHsxZ9kMv2CcqsuJ1lKi7NvFWNrV6anm0JYCipkO6vPf9+lh4vQEm0OF3c3529pKW+iWOdYXo2qdfRCUq+WEotSqylXf2XNwyvaMFj78WxkDz54OLeWsibKo=
Received: from DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.226.155) by DB5PR0301MB1927.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.227.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.863.16; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:58:41 +0000
Received: from DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d461:c56e:7404:d5b1]) by DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d461:c56e:7404:d5b1%6]) with mapi id 15.20.0863.016; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:58:40 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.authors@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa.authors@ietf.org" <draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa.authors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Is TI-LFA compatible with the default SR algorithm?
Thread-Index: AdQDJQBEzlZGSBhRThelBw/PgQXs7AAqTYjAAAIxaIAAAhpuAAAB5WVA
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <DB5PR0301MB1909573ADECD1A7284E0084B9D7D0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909F44C6E7D9311B0FDA0C99D7E0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1113_1528973791_5B2249DF_1113_378_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B1C4116@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DB5PR0301MB190902EA5E6978D5FF16D0879D7D0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <928cd976-4604-ca05-6dbc-37d3a099d859@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <928cd976-4604-ca05-6dbc-37d3a099d859@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5PR0301MB1927; 7:oklrhy+Wlgm2S/EfEIucG0Vk7SmvE8EeOwa9bqvvHH7H77LFdn99HTMcHvKZFXP+/tNcbxtqDkYNxk+73bTFNw8mMKy+lBiM+sBap8/DVQoeda0j5SpKVlZtA2z6Xa99AB3Qs6RccUEDrcjn35/BneSTaxYcu0sAaZs16hcTGjjb2qD9LzNUdcc2DloHgp9Wl/hfbRKRFz0yd6i3ZuC/j4xC/XZ81WPiqL0dt2n6vIjHoZkvnUKVlzPz6VnhALOl
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 37cd405c-3f39-4042-952f-08d5d1feef4c
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(711020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1927;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB5PR0301MB1927:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB5PR0301MB1927845F32736CF855BB1E729D7D0@DB5PR0301MB1927.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(85827821059158)(18271650672692)(21748063052155)(279101305709854);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1927; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1927;
x-forefront-prvs: 0703B549E4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(39380400002)(376002)(189003)(199004)(252514010)(51914003)(51444003)(33656002)(6436002)(6916009)(7736002)(86362001)(316002)(93886005)(8676002)(72206003)(14454004)(478600001)(74316002)(3280700002)(229853002)(2906002)(106356001)(105586002)(54906003)(97736004)(5660300001)(55016002)(3660700001)(476003)(486006)(446003)(11346002)(68736007)(6116002)(186003)(25786009)(26005)(6506007)(39060400002)(53546011)(4326008)(81166006)(5250100002)(81156014)(6246003)(102836004)(2900100001)(790700001)(3846002)(99286004)(8936002)(53936002)(66066001)(9686003)(54896002)(7696005)(6306002)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5PR0301MB1927; H:DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: fEsHNzkmTbn8i1xqQXhYqmuoT1esjq3hz7bbeimGPigKGl/4fHSKWLoppc5BKyC4wPxvqwc5agkAG+oSPk5UD8szXKFrWP9DNGcIoG7ohRr2Ia5F1a5CZY5XDOiKSUtAOe2KB/Cvm3F6NjhnsPh0fshvZ/TyzCK+GhQIWukaLVOVElz8AoqRktBXBaQpRAkL
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB5PR0301MB1909573ADECD1A7284E0084B9D7D0DB5PR0301MB1909_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 37cd405c-3f39-4042-952f-08d5d1feef4c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jun 2018 13:58:40.8804 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR0301MB1927
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yLgYWm6imfDbVtl6SzJ2J__G2QI>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is TI-LFA compatible with the default SR algorithm?
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:58:58 -0000

Stewart,
Lots of thanks for the clarification.

Coming back to the TI-LFA draft, I think that it should explicitly state that  in the case of Prefix-SIDs it is applicable to Prefix-SIDs associated with the  strict SPF algorithm but does not guarantee any results in the case of Prefix-SIDs associated with the default algorithm.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:59 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.authors@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa.authors@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Is TI-LFA compatible with the default SR algorithm?




On 14/06/2018 13:45, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Please note that RFC 5286 explicitly states that it is only applicable to intra-domain routing only with OSPF or IS-IS as IGP.
It does not mention the possibility of local policies overriding shortest path routing provided by these protocols.

10 years ago when we were thinking about these early IPFRR schemes I don't recall anyone considering anything
other that simple Dijkstra paths for IP. The exception perhaps was Not-Via, but in that case base connectivity
and repair had orthogonal address spaces. I am not sure is that is the direction with policy and flex, but
that may be a required direction for unconditional safety.

- Stewart

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email