Hi Joel, Please check inline below.
-----Original Message----- From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: 25 September 2020 19:08 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt Thanks Ketan. Let me paraphrase to confirm I understand, with some suggestions. And repeat the last question which seems to have gotten lost. It seems that you are saying that the arg field is defined for now so the format is consistent, but is not used by any behavior defined in this draft. [KT] The ISIS draft does not actually define any behavior - it only specifies signaling of a subset of behaviors defined in net-pgm. You are right that the behaviors that are listed as being signalled by ISIS in the current document do not support an ARG. If so, should we say explicitly that ARG is (or MUST be) 0 for all the behaviors defined in this draft? [KT] I am not sure it is necessary. A future ISIS extension may introduce support for signaling of a behavior that supports ARG. Then separately the folks working on the END.DT2M behavior can write their own draft one how to advertise that in is-is? Presumably with an additional sub-TLV dealing with k and x? [KT] End.DT2M is signaled in BGP and specified in BGP extensions. If a future ISIS extension was to advertise a SID with a behavior supporting ARG, then it would need to clarify its handling of the ARG. Also, can you tell me how the association of an END.T behavior with a table is understood from the advertisement as described in the draft? [KT] Indeed, the End.T signaling does not carry the table context with it. Thanks, Ketan Thank you, Joel On 9/25/2020 1:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Please check inline below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: 25 September 2020 03:18 > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt > > First, there is a slight confusion in the way I formed the quesiton, but I > think it still applies. > > The piece of this draft is section 9, which advertises the length of the arg > portion of the SID. But does not provide specific meanings for specific > values. > [KT] This is quite appropriate for this draft since it is only specifying a > generic SID structure and not associated with any specific behavior. > > The example of an ARG in the network programming draft does provide part of > the explicit interpretation of the ARG. It says that it is a list of k > items, each of x bits, where each x bit blob identifies an OIF. > [KT] The net-pgm draft in sec 4.12 introduces a specific End.DT2M behavior > which includes support for ARG. That said, I am not quite sure about that > text in that section which talks about how the ARG bits are formed and what > they signify. I believe the ARG in this case is a locally assigned identifier > that maps to an ESI so that it can be used for ESI filtering - much the same > as an ESI label for split-horizon filtering. I see a comment from one of the > ADs on this and I expect that the authors will clarify. > > This leaves two gaps, and a more general question. > 1) How does the receiver know the meanings of the OIF indices so that he can > correctly fill them in? > 2) The NP draft says that k and x are defined on a per SID basis. But I do > not see anywhere in the isis draft to advertise the values of k and x, only > arg (which is k*x). > [KT] I hope the previous comment explains. > > The more general question is, is there a requirement we can write down about > how receivers will be able to understand ARG fields in general? > One can argue that it would belong in the network programming draft; I would > prefer not to delay that with a significant technical addition. > [KT] I don't believe the handling of ARG is something that can be > generalized. It has to be something specific to the behavior that it is > associated with. Therefore, each behavior that supports an ARG needs to > specify its handling. The net-pgm draft is doing it for End.DT2M and future > documents that introduce other behaviors requiring ARG would be expected to > the same. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > There is a related question that I came across while trying to explain this > question. > > END.T must be associated with a forwarding table. I presume this is done by > where one puts the END.T (however-many-subs) TLV. But I can not find > anything in this draft that says this. There is precisely one reference to > End.T in the draft. > > Thank you, > Joel > > On 9/24/2020 5:25 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> H Joel, >> >> Can you reference the specific section in the IS-IS SRv6 draft you are >> commenting on? I seem to remember this discussion but it was at least a >> month back, if not more. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 9/23/20, 6:31 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel Halpern" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org >> on behalf of j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >> >> The announcement prompted me to look again and think about an >> interaction between this and the network programming draft. To be >> clear, I am NOT objecting to either this or the network programming >> draft. I am just wondering what I am missing. >> >> The NP draft, and the advertisement mechanism allows a router to >> advertise the number of bits for the ARG portion of a SID. >> >> Q1: The point presumably is to avoid needing to advertise each of the >> individual values? >> >> An example of this is, I think, and ARG for the table selection where >> the ARG is the table number for the packet to be looked up in? >> >> Q2: If so, how does the head end know what table number corresponds to >> what meaning? If this requires a separate advertisement there seems >> to be no savings. if this requires out-of-band knowledge then we seem >> to have lost the benefit of advertising all of this in the routing >> protocol. >> >> I suspect I am simply missing a piece. can someone explain please? >> >> Thank you, >> Joel >> >> On 9/23/2020 4:40 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: >> > >> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> > This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. >> > >> > Title : IS-IS Extension to Support Segment >> Routing over IPv6 Dataplane >> > Authors : Peter Psenak >> > Clarence Filsfils >> > Ahmed Bashandy >> > Bruno Decraene >> > Zhibo Hu >> > Filename : draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt >> > Pages : 25 >> > Date : 2020-09-23 >> > >> > Abstract: >> > Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of >> end-to-end >> > paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, >> called >> > "segments". Segment routing architecture can be implemented >> over an >> > MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane. This draft >> describes >> > the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an >> IPv6 >> > data plane. >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> Lsr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
