On Jun 12, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote:
Bruno, SPRING,
I am aware of at least one implementation that makes heavy use of Binding SIDs,
so I do not think that this is something that we can remove from the protocol
specification.
It seems to me that we have a number of cases that continue to exist that make
it useful to have them specified, particularly:
• Binding of a SID to a deeper label stack to prevent there being large
label stacks required on ingress. This is required due to limited push depth,
and limited readable label depths for hashing.
• Re-use of some other protocol's or network's forwarding path by a
device that is imposing an SR label stack.
There is not an alternative construct that can be used for this purpose, so we
should not remove it.
In both of these cases there seems, to me, to be a use case for having the information in
the IGP in the case that an implementation computes TE paths using cSPF, having binding
SID information available to it (along with the ERO) enables it to reduce the label stack
depth by finding binding SIDs that follow the same path as the computed ERO. Without the
ERO (which might not be an RSVP-TE ERO, but I believe that it how it was first envisaged)
how can the head-end of an TE path know what path the advertised Binding SID takes? It's
fine to punt this and say "the PCE in the sky will know" - however, I believe
SPRING's charter doesn't limit the technology to only centralised computation of paths.
I don't believe current demand for this is a good reason to remove it from the
protocol specification - it is still somewhat early days for folks deploying TE
based on SR - where I think the Binding SID concept is most important.
r.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 at 05:50 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello SPRING WG,
I'd like to encourage discussion on this thread.
The related questions seem to be:
- Binding SIDs:
- Is there any implementation?
- Is it useful?
- Does it need to be specified?
- Binding SIDs advertised in IGP:
- Is there any implementation?
- Is it useful?
- Does it need to be specified?
As of today, there seem to be multiple SPRING (related) document that make
reference (define/use) to the Binding SIDs. e.g.
- architecture
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11#section-3.5.2
- MPLS instantiation
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-08#section-2
- non-protected paths
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-litkowski-spring-non-protected-paths-01#section-3.3
- SR policies:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-00#section-7
However, it also seems a priori possible to define Binding SIDs and not
advertised them in the IGP. (e.g. by keeping them local to the PCE)
On a side note, if the Binding SIDs are removed from the IGP, do they need to
be removed from the BGP-LS extensions? [+IDR chairs]
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:18 AM
> To: OSPF WG List; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would
also effect
> OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get some feedback on the usage of the SID/Label Binding TLV.
>
> Is there any implementation that uses SID/Label Binding TLV for
> advertising the SID/Label binding to a FEC as specified in section 6 of
> the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 or section 2.4 of
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12?
>
> If not, do we see this as something we want to preserve in the IGP SR
> drafts?
>
> ISIS uses The SID/Label Binding TLV to advertise
> prefixes to SID/Label mappings, which is known to be supported by
> several implementations and that piece needs to be preserved.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote:
> > Acee,
> >
> > my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label
> > Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for
> > SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
> >> To: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
> >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >> Cc: "[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>"
> >> <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
> >> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
> >>
> >> Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,
> >>
> >> As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
> >> extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
> >> not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
> >> document shepherd, my proposal is that they simply be removed since
> >> they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
> >> no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
> >> deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
> >> registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
> >> indefinitely ;^).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
