Hello everyone,
I really do see a good use-case for turning on IP-FRR protection for
just one address family, and it does not have anything to do with making
IPv6 customer better or worse than IPv4 customer traffic.
Consider the IP/MPLS network I have today. Several address families are
active in the backbone, but all customer traffic is carried in MPLS
packets guided by IPv4-signalled LDP. This holds for ANY customer
traffic, whether it is public IPv4, public IPv6, VPNs in IPv4 or IPv6 or
L2-VPNs. Unlabeled IPv4 traffic also exists in the same backbone, but
only for routing protocols themselves, and/or network management. Thus
there is no need to protect this unlabeled IPv4 traffic in the same way
as the customer MPLS traffic.
In the future, I might activate IPv6 in the backbone and introduce more
and more routing and management protocols with IPv6. Still no need to
protect IPv6. Eventually I might shift LDP (or SR) from IPv4 controlled
to IPv6 controlled. What was IPv6-over-IPv4-controlled-MPLS becomes
plain IPv6-labeled traffic then, and IPv4-labeled traffic will become
IPv4-over-IPv6-controlled-MPLS. At THAT point in time it becomes
important to protect the IPv6 controlled MPLS traffic, and thus the IPv6
address family in the IGP, but no earlier.
So please do not mix up control traffic and customer traffic, internal
routing and customer routes. Thank you.
Best regards, Martin
Am 24.02.15 um 16:02 schrieb Hannes Gredler:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 03:55:32PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
| I can imagine cases in which the per AF enabling might make sense (e.g.
| when the network associated w one address family is deemed non-critical).
HG> as it is unlikely that operators will tun off IPv4 protection,
may i have a ask that you repeat that quote above in the 6man
meeting ;-) ? - effectifely you're saying "IPv6 may be considered
as less critical", and therefore we SHOULD provide a knob
to turn protection off.
|
|
| Section 5.1 is a SHOULD - as is most of the document. It is therefore a
| suggestion as to what an implementation should provide. If a given
| implementer thinks this is either too onerous or not useful they can omit
| it w/o being in violation. But I see no reason to eliminate this - and in
| actual practice I would expect the cost of supporting such a knob to be
| low cost. It is hard for me to see this as controversial.
|
|
|
| Les
|
|
|
|
|
| From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
| Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:10 PM
| To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura;
| [email protected]
| Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
|
|
|
| [Les:] I think your point here is that the LFA calculation is AF
| independent within a given topology - but resources are consumed
| independent of how many computations are required- giving an operator the
| ability to determine which prefixes are most critical seems useful. That
| could be per AF or per prefix.
|
|
|
| [SLI] Agree but is the "resource saving" point strong enough to mandate
| per AF activation ?
|
|
|
| From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [[1]mailto:[email protected]]
| Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 05:01
| To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF;
| [2][email protected]
| Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
|
|
|
| Pushpassis -
|
|
|
| From: rtgwg [[3]mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pushpasis
| Sarkar
| Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:28 AM
| To: Jeff Tantsura; [4][email protected]; [5][email protected]
| Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
|
|
|
| HI Jeff et al,
|
|
|
| I can think of a reason to have a knob per-level(or per-area) or per ISIS
| topology(note in ISIS a topology in ISIS always corresponds to a single
| AF,)
|
|
|
| [Les:] This is a common mistake to make. If one simply uses RFC 5308, then
| IPv6 prefixes can be advertised in the same topology as IPv4 (MTID #0) -
| and there are implementations which support this. More generally, from the
| protocol's POV a given topology can support any combinations of address
| families. It is only a convention because of the reserved MTIDs specified
| in RFC 5120 that certain MTIDs are "IPv6 only". But if one looks at the
| protocol capabilities such a restriction does not exist in general.
|
|
|
| Interestingly you contradicted yourself below. J
|
| But I did want to set the record straight on this point - hopefully we are
| in agreement.
|
|
|
| and per realm and topology in OSPF. But I cannot think of a reason of why
| within the same topology we need another set of knobs for each AF. Here,
| by AF I understand IPV4 or IPv6.
|
|
|
| When both IPV4 and IPV6 are part of the same IGP topology, there is only
| one set of backup computations needed to protect both IPV4 and IPv6
| traffic.
|
|
|
| Also I cannot think of any motivation for an operator to turn on
| protection on only one AF and does not want to turn on for the other even
| if both AFs has been deployed for normal forwarding.
|
|
|
| [Les:] I think your point here is that the LFA calculation is AF
| independent within a given topology - but resources are consumed
| independent of how many computations are required- giving an operator the
| ability to determine which prefixes are most critical seems useful. That
| could be per AF or per prefix.
|
|
|
| Les
|
|
|
| Thanks
|
| -Pushpasis
|
|
|
| From: Jeff Tantsura <[6][email protected]>
| Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 at 12:59 PM
| To: "[7][email protected]" <[8][email protected]>,
| "[9][email protected]" <[10][email protected]>
| Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
|
|
|
| Hi Stephane,
|
|
|
| /chair hat off
|
|
|
| IMO in disjoined topologies one should have flexibility to enable/disable
| LFA as per AF.
|
|
|
|
|
| Cheers,
|
| Jeff
|
|
|
| From: "[11][email protected]"
| <[12][email protected]>
| Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:21 PM
| To: "[13][email protected]" <[14][email protected]>
| Subject: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
|
|
|
| Hi Folks,
|
|
|
| As you know, LFA manageability draft is in final phasis ...
|
| The current document states per AF granularity activation as a SHOULD.
|
| "
|
| [15]5.1. LFA enabling/disabling scope
|
|
|
|
|
| The granularity of LFA activation should be controlled (as alternate
|
| nexthop consume memory in forwarding plane).
|
|
|
| An implementation of LFA SHOULD allow its activation with the
|
| following criteria:
|
|
|
| o Per address-family : ipv4 unicast, ipv6 unicast, LDP IPv4 unicast,
|
| LDP IPv6 unicast ...
|
|
|
| o Per routing context : VRF, virtual/logical router, global routing
|
| table, ...
|
|
|
| "
|
|
|
| In the framework of ISIS/OSPF yang modelization, we are challenging this
| statement, do we really need to force implementation to support this
| "per AF" granularity ?
|
|
|
| Please provide as soon as possible your feedback on this and also
| provide clear drivers to support or not per AF activation of LFA.
|
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for your help !
|
|
|
|
|
| [16]Orange logo
|
|
|
| Stephane Litkowski
| Network Architect
| Orange/SCE/EQUANT/IBNF/ENDD/NDE
|
| Orange Expert Future Networks
|
| phone: [17]+33 2 23 28 49 83
| mobile: [18]+33 6 37 86 97 52
| [19][email protected]
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
| 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.
|
| References
|
| Visible links
| 1. mailto:[email protected]
| 2. mailto:[email protected]
| 3. mailto:[email protected]
| 4. mailto:[email protected]
| 5. mailto:[email protected]
| 6. mailto:[email protected]
| 7. mailto:[email protected]
| 8. mailto:[email protected]
| 9. mailto:[email protected]
| 10. mailto:[email protected]
| 11. mailto:[email protected]
| 12. mailto:[email protected]
| 13. mailto:[email protected]
| 14. mailto:[email protected]
| 15.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-07#section-5.1
| 16. http://www.orange.com/
| 17.
https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20
| 18.
https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20
| 19. mailto:[email protected]
| _______________________________________________
| rtgwg mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
##############################################
# Mail Account for technical purposes only
##############################################
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
