Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Hi Les, Please see inline. > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, > May 14, 2016 7:04 PM > > Uma - > > I'd like to close this point of discussion as regards the conflict-resolution > draft. > > For the record, I agree with Peter. But from the standpoint of conflict > resolution it matters not for what purpose SRMS is being used In order for all nodes to consider the same SR data during the SR-conflict algo, what matters is whether all node within a domain MUST support SRMS or not,. So 2 options: - SRMS is mandatary to implement or to deploy consistently, and this need to be stated somewhere, e.g. in spring-conflict-resolution. (e.g. in the early days, this was not the case for all implementations) - the SR-conflict algo is defined in a way to give the same result, for a Prefix-SID, with partial SRMS deployment. This may be feasible is SID-Prefix info are given strict priority over SRMS. Thanks, --Bruno > - we have to > consider SRMS advertisements as well as SIDs associated w prefix > advertisements. I hope that point has been clearly explained. > > If you wish to continue the discussion with the architecture draft authors as > to whether further discussion of SRMS as a network provisioning tool > should/should not be added to a document please feel free to do so - but I > would ask that you do so in another thread. > Thanx. > >Les > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:31 AM > > To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com > > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG > adoption > > call > > > > Uma, > > > > I don't know whether you need a text in the draft/RFC to use some > > functionality one way or the other. The fact is that SRMS is a SID > provisioning > > tool. You can use it for SR/LDP interoperability, but you can also use it > > in a > SR > > only network to provide SIDs from a central place instead of configuring > them > > on each device. There is nothing that prevents you to use it one way or the > > other. The fact that SRMS is defined in the SR/LDP interop drfat does not > > mean it is restricted to be used for that purpose. > > > > I let authors of the SR architecture drafts to decide whether they want to > add > > the text. As an author of the OSPF SR draft, I do not see anything in the > text > > that you put below that would contradict what I'm saying here. > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > On 5/12/16 20:19 , Uma Chunduri wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, > > > whether you like it or not. > > > It's not about your or my linking - I was talking about what's the > > > defined scope so far (architecture doc or protocol docs) and how you > > > want to extend the scope. > > > Well, if you want to extend the current scope of SRMS as a "">2)As a > > > global provisioning tool" - Plz. do so but not while providing > > > conflict resolution solution. > > > > It provides all the functionality that is required > > > for such provisioning tool. > > > >You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. > > > I didn't restrict anything - Plz. see SRMS stuff so far: > > > 1. > > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08#sect > > > ion-3.6_ > > > > > > /" //3.6.1. Mapping Server/ > > > ///A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for > > > remote/ ///prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the > > > same/ ///information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. > > > Further/ ///details are described in the SR/LDP interworking > > > procedures/ ///([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].//"/ > > > 2. ISIS: > > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extension > > > s-06#section-2.4_ > > > > > > /" //This functionality is called the/ /'Mapping Server' and it's > > > used when, in a heterogeneous network,/ ///not all nodes are > > > capable of advertising their own SIDs/Labels.//"/ 3. OSPF: > > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extension > > > s-08#section-4_ > > > > > > /"// In some cases it is useful to advertise attri
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Uma - I'd like to close this point of discussion as regards the conflict-resolution draft. For the record, I agree with Peter. But from the standpoint of conflict resolution it matters not for what purpose SRMS is being used - we have to consider SRMS advertisements as well as SIDs associated w prefix advertisements. I hope that point has been clearly explained. If you wish to continue the discussion with the architecture draft authors as to whether further discussion of SRMS as a network provisioning tool should/should not be added to a document please feel free to do so - but I would ask that you do so in another thread. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:31 AM > To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption > call > > Uma, > > I don't know whether you need a text in the draft/RFC to use some > functionality one way or the other. The fact is that SRMS is a SID > provisioning > tool. You can use it for SR/LDP interoperability, but you can also use it in > a SR > only network to provide SIDs from a central place instead of configuring them > on each device. There is nothing that prevents you to use it one way or the > other. The fact that SRMS is defined in the SR/LDP interop drfat does not > mean it is restricted to be used for that purpose. > > I let authors of the SR architecture drafts to decide whether they want to add > the text. As an author of the OSPF SR draft, I do not see anything in the text > that you put below that would contradict what I'm saying here. > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 5/12/16 20:19 , Uma Chunduri wrote: > > Peter, > > > as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, > > whether you like it or not. > > It's not about your or my linking - I was talking about what's the > > defined scope so far (architecture doc or protocol docs) and how you > > want to extend the scope. > > Well, if you want to extend the current scope of SRMS as a "">2)As a > > global provisioning tool" - Plz. do so but not while providing > > conflict resolution solution. > > > It provides all the functionality that is required > > for such provisioning tool. > > >You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. > > I didn't restrict anything - Plz. see SRMS stuff so far: > > 1. > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08#sect > > ion-3.6_ > > > > /" //3.6.1. Mapping Server/ > > ///A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for > > remote/ ///prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the > > same/ ///information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. > > Further/ ///details are described in the SR/LDP interworking > > procedures/ ///([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].//"/ > > 2. ISIS: > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extension > > s-06#section-2.4_ > > > > /" //This functionality is called the/ /'Mapping Server' and it's > > used when, in a heterogeneous network,/ ///not all nodes are > > capable of advertising their own SIDs/Labels.//"/ 3. OSPF: > > _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extension > > s-08#section-4_ > > > > /"// In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of/ > > ///prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described > > in/ ///[//I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop/ > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extension > > s-08>/], > > is an example/ > > ///where we need a single advertisement to advertise SIDs for > > multiple/ ///prefixes from a contiguous address range.//"/ Again, plz. > > extend the scope first and consider the same in resolution solution. I > > am fine with it. > > -- > > Uma C. > > -Original Message- > > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:03 AM > > To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; > > bruno.decra...@orange.com > > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG > > adoption call Hi Uma, On 5/12/16 19:49 , Uma Chunduri wrote: > >> Stefano, > >> > >> Thanks for your response. > >> > >>> using a SR
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Uma, I don't know whether you need a text in the draft/RFC to use some functionality one way or the other. The fact is that SRMS is a SID provisioning tool. You can use it for SR/LDP interoperability, but you can also use it in a SR only network to provide SIDs from a central place instead of configuring them on each device. There is nothing that prevents you to use it one way or the other. The fact that SRMS is defined in the SR/LDP interop drfat does not mean it is restricted to be used for that purpose. I let authors of the SR architecture drafts to decide whether they want to add the text. As an author of the OSPF SR draft, I do not see anything in the text that you put below that would contradict what I'm saying here. thanks, Peter On 5/12/16 20:19 , Uma Chunduri wrote: Peter, > as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, whether you like it or not. It's not about your or my linking - I was talking about what's the defined scope so far (architecture doc or protocol docs) and how you want to extend the scope. Well, if you want to extend the current scope of SRMS as a "">2)As a global provisioning tool" - Plz. do so but not while providing conflict resolution solution. > It provides all the functionality that is required for such provisioning tool. >You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. I didn't restrict anything - Plz. see SRMS stuff so far: 1. _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08#section-3.6_ /" //3.6.1. Mapping Server/ ///A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for remote/ ///prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the same/ ///information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. Further/ ///details are described in the SR/LDP interworking procedures/ ///([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].//"/ 2. ISIS: _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4_ /" //This functionality is called the/ /'Mapping Server' and it's used when, in a heterogeneous network,/ ///not all nodes are capable of advertising their own SIDs/Labels.//"/ 3. OSPF: _https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08#section-4_ /"// In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of/ ///prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in/ ///[//I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop/ <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08>/], is an example/ ///where we need a single advertisement to advertise SIDs for multiple/ ///prefixes from a contiguous address range.//"/ Again, plz. extend the scope first and consider the same in resolution solution. I am fine with it. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:03 AM To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Hi Uma, On 5/12/16 19:49 , Uma Chunduri wrote: Stefano, Thanks for your response. > using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not > sure what we need to document here. My point below: We are creating a conflict resolution solution for a non-existing requirement of using SRMS viz., ">2)As a global provisioning tool". From your statement above, it seems you have less interest to make this as a requirement/scope of SRMS; I am more aligned in that path as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, whether you like it or not. It provides all the functionality that is required for such provisioning tool. You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. thanks, Peter On the second point: > the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. AFAIS,https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 talks about both data planes right from abstract to multiple places (which it ought to). I leave this to you/WG on where you want to document this -but IMO conflict resolution "solution document" in the current form potentially introducing fundamental requirements to the system like cross protocol verification (with in/across AS). Perhaps some discussion should be there in data plane document then. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);bruno.decra...@orange.com <mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Peter, > as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, whether you like it or not. It's not about your or my linking - I was talking about what's the defined scope so far (architecture doc or protocol docs) and how you want to extend the scope. Well, if you want to extend the current scope of SRMS as a "">2)As a global provisioning tool" - Plz. do so but not while providing conflict resolution solution. > It provides all the functionality that is required for such provisioning tool. >You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. I didn't restrict anything - Plz. see SRMS stuff so far: 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08#section-3.6 " 3.6.1. Mapping Server A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for remote prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the same information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. Further details are described in the SR/LDP interworking procedures ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]." 2. ISIS: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4 " This functionality is called the 'Mapping Server' and it's used when, in a heterogeneous network, not all nodes are capable of advertising their own SIDs/Labels." 3. OSPF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08#section-4 " In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08>], is an example where we need a single advertisement to advertise SIDs for multiple prefixes from a contiguous address range." Again, plz. extend the scope first and consider the same in resolution solution. I am fine with it. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:03 AM To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Hi Uma, On 5/12/16 19:49 , Uma Chunduri wrote: > Stefano, > > Thanks for your response. > > > using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does > not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not > > sure what we need to document here. > > My point below: We are creating a conflict resolution solution for a > non-existing requirement of using SRMS viz., ">2)As a global provisioning > tool". > From your statement above, it seems you have less interest to make this as a > requirement/scope of SRMS; I am more aligned in that path as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, whether you like it or not. It provides all the functionality that is required for such provisioning tool. You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. thanks, Peter > > On the second point: > > > the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer > to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. > > AFAIS, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 > talks about both data planes right from abstract to multiple places (which it > ought to). > I leave this to you/WG on where you want to document this -but IMO > conflict resolution "solution document" in the current form potentially > introducing fundamental requirements to the system like cross protocol > verification (with in/across AS). Perhaps some discussion should be there in > data plane document then. > > -- > Uma C. > > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM > To: Uma Chunduri > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); > bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; > spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG > adoption call > > >> On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri >> mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> Les, >> >> 2 quick things. >> >> 1. >> >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >> >1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR >> capable nodes >>
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Hi Uma, On 5/12/16 19:49 , Uma Chunduri wrote: Stefano, Thanks for your response. > using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not > sure what we need to document here. My point below: We are creating a conflict resolution solution for a non-existing requirement of using SRMS viz., ">2)As a global provisioning tool". From your statement above, it seems you have less interest to make this as a requirement/scope of SRMS; I am more aligned in that path as a matter of fact, SRMS is a SID provisioning tool, whether you like it or not. It provides all the functionality that is required for such provisioning tool. You can not restrict its usage to SR/LDP interop case. thanks, Peter On the second point: > the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. AFAIS, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 talks about both data planes right from abstract to multiple places (which it ought to). I leave this to you/WG on where you want to document this -but IMO conflict resolution "solution document" in the current form potentially introducing fundamental requirements to the system like cross protocol verification (with in/across AS). Perhaps some discussion should be there in data plane document then. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: Les, 2 quick things. 1. >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR capable nodes >2)As a global provisioning tool I am hearing #2 for the first time. I don’t see this either discussed earlier in the WG list or captured in architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07. Even in the protocol extensions document for example https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4 we always discussed this from non-SR capable nodes PoV. So I request to add this in architecture document before factoring this for solution in conflict resolution. using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not sure what we need to document here. 2. Also this is the first time ever we have a requirement for cross protocols verification we ought to discuss the implications of this and protocols involved (with in AS or otherwise) in the architecture document (at least briefly). the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. with the ipv6 data-plane SR conflicts are in fact solved by ipv6 addressing techniques ;-) s. -- Uma C. From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Uma – To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane network-wide in the presence of conflicting advertisements. The set of advertisements includes both SIDs advertised in protocol prefix reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements because problems occur based upon inconsistencies in what is installed in the forwarding plane of different routers. It matters not whether Router A used a SID advertised by a protocol prefix reachability advertisement or by an SRMS advertisement – what matter is whether the SID used is consistent with what the neighbors of Router A use. So simply ensuring that OSPF (for example) resolves SIDs in a consistent way does not fully address the problem space. More inline. From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:59 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Les, With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID conflicts as an “architectural change” and it can severely impact the existing implementations (at least the one I work on). [Les:] It is quite correct – and I can confirm based on personal experience – that support for conflict resolution is a significant effort.
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Stefano, Thanks for your response. > using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not > sure what we need to document here. My point below: We are creating a conflict resolution solution for a non-existing requirement of using SRMS viz., ">2)As a global provisioning tool". From your statement above, it seems you have less interest to make this as a requirement/scope of SRMS; I am more aligned in that path On the second point: > the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. AFAIS, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 talks about both data planes right from abstract to multiple places (which it ought to). I leave this to you/WG on where you want to document this -but IMO conflict resolution "solution document" in the current form potentially introducing fundamental requirements to the system like cross protocol verification (with in/across AS). Perhaps some discussion should be there in data plane document then. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call > On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > > Les, > > 2 quick things. > > 1. > >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >>1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR > capable nodes >>2)As a global provisioning tool > I am hearing #2 for the first time. I don’t see this > either discussed earlier in the WG list or captured in architecture > document > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07. Even in the > protocol extensions document for example > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4 > we always discussed this from non-SR > capable nodes PoV. So I request to add this in > architecture document before factoring this for solution in conflict > resolution. using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not sure what we need to document here. > > 2. Also this is the first time ever we have a requirement for cross > protocols verification we ought to discuss the implications of this > and protocols involved (with in AS or otherwise) in the architecture document > (at least briefly). the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. with the ipv6 data-plane SR conflicts are in fact solved by ipv6 addressing techniques ;-) s. > > -- > Uma C. > > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM > To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG > adoption call > > Uma – > > To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use > of SIDs in the forwarding plane network-wide in the presence of conflicting > advertisements. The set of advertisements includes both SIDs advertised in > protocol prefix reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements because > problems occur based upon inconsistencies in what is installed in the > forwarding plane of different routers. It matters not whether Router A used a > SID advertised by a protocol prefix reachability advertisement or by an SRMS > advertisement – what matter is whether the SID used is consistent with what > the neighbors of Router A use. So simply ensuring that OSPF (for example) > resolves SIDs in a consistent way does not fully address the problem space. > > More inline. > > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:59 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; > spring@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG > adoption call > > Les, > > With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID > conflicts as an “architectural change” and it can severely impact the > existing implementations (at least the one I work on). > > [Les:] It is quite correct – and I can conf
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Dear WG, Draft has been accepted as a WG document. Authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution Thanks, --Bruno and John > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:55 AM > > > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 AM > > > > Dear WG, > > > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has > been > > requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited > to > > whether or not you support adoption. > > We will end the call on April 29, 2016. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --John and Bruno > > > > > > > > > __ > > > __ > > _ > > > > 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 > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > __ > __ > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
> On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > > Les, > > 2 quick things. > > 1. > >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >>1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR > capable nodes >>2)As a global provisioning tool > I am hearing #2 for the first time. I don’t see this > either discussed earlier in the WG list or captured in architecture > document > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07. Even in the > protocol extensions document for example > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4 > we always discussed this from non-SR > capable nodes PoV. So I request to add this in > architecture document before factoring this for solution in conflict > resolution. using a SRMS for advertising SID on behalf of SR capable nodes does not introduce any change in the SR architecture so not sure what we need to document here. > > 2. Also this is the first time ever we have a requirement for cross > protocols verification we ought to discuss the implications of this > and protocols involved (with in AS or otherwise) in the architecture document > (at least briefly). the architecture draft is data-pane agnostic so I presume you refer to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. with the ipv6 data-plane SR conflicts are in fact solved by ipv6 addressing techniques ;-) s. > > -- > Uma C. > > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM > To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption > call > > Uma – > > To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use > of SIDs in the forwarding plane network-wide in the presence of conflicting > advertisements. The set of advertisements includes both SIDs advertised in > protocol prefix reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements because > problems occur based upon inconsistencies in what is installed in the > forwarding plane of different routers. It matters not whether Router A used a > SID advertised by a protocol prefix reachability advertisement or by an SRMS > advertisement – what matter is whether the SID used is consistent with what > the neighbors of Router A use. So simply ensuring that OSPF (for example) > resolves SIDs in a consistent way does not fully address the problem space. > > More inline. > > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:59 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption > call > > Les, > > With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID > conflicts as an “architectural change” and it can severely impact the > existing implementations (at least the one I work on). > > [Les:] It is quite correct – and I can confirm based on personal experience – > that support for conflict resolution is a significant effort. > > Also I have couple of cases where current version of the draft is not clear > about resolution. > > IMO, first we need clarity with in a protocol instance resolution rules > before going to resolve the same across protocols (I mentioned few cases > below) . > Separation of reachability advertisements and SRMS would help “cross > protocol” verification of the ranges and SRMS is not applicable to all > protocols. > > > In-line [Uma]: > > -- > Uma C. > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:11 PM > To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption > call > > Uma – > > We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements > regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) – > > [Uma]: While you can theoretically do anything for current implementation > this kind of cross protocol verification is a new architectural requirement. >Because it seems “a central entity” need to gather all > different protocol instances SRMS advertisements and should settle with > resolution. > > - Also note SRMS is not applicable for BGP but it seems all prefix > SIDs n
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Les, 2 quick things. 1. >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR capable nodes >2)As a global provisioning tool I am hearing #2 for the first time. I don't see this either discussed earlier in the WG list or captured in architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07. Even in the protocol extensions document for example https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06#section-2.4 we always discussed this from non-SR capable nodes PoV. So I request to add this in architecture document before factoring this for solution in conflict resolution. 2. Also this is the first time ever we have a requirement for cross protocols verification we ought to discuss the implications of this and protocols involved (with in AS or otherwise) in the architecture document (at least briefly). -- Uma C. From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Uma - To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane network-wide in the presence of conflicting advertisements. The set of advertisements includes both SIDs advertised in protocol prefix reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements because problems occur based upon inconsistencies in what is installed in the forwarding plane of different routers. It matters not whether Router A used a SID advertised by a protocol prefix reachability advertisement or by an SRMS advertisement - what matter is whether the SID used is consistent with what the neighbors of Router A use. So simply ensuring that OSPF (for example) resolves SIDs in a consistent way does not fully address the problem space. More inline. From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:59 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Les, With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID conflicts as an "architectural change" and it can severely impact the existing implementations (at least the one I work on). [Les:] It is quite correct - and I can confirm based on personal experience - that support for conflict resolution is a significant effort. Also I have couple of cases where current version of the draft is not clear about resolution. IMO, first we need clarity with in a protocol instance resolution rules before going to resolve the same across protocols (I mentioned few cases below) . Separation of reachability advertisements and SRMS would help "cross protocol" verification of the ranges and SRMS is not applicable to all protocols. In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:11 PM To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Uma - We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) - [Uma]: While you can theoretically do anything for current implementation this kind of cross protocol verification is a new architectural requirement. Because it seems "a central entity" need to gather all different protocol instances SRMS advertisements and should settle with resolution. - Also note SRMS is not applicable for BGP but it seems all prefix SIDs need to be verified with IGP instances SRMS advertisements. Is this true? While the document mostly talks about these and compares with prefix advertisement. [Les:] The issue is protocol agnostic. - Algorithm proposed needs more clarity: Take Section 3.2.4 o " 1. Smaller range wins 2. IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry ... " What happens in case of prefix conflict or SID conflict with only prefix advertisements (range 1). Say multiple prefixes have same SID in one protocol instance and in different protocols. I see 2 levels of resolution required viz., one at within the protocol and one among the protocols. No discussion on this. [Les:] The full set of rules specified in the draft provide determini
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Les, Your draft represents a view from only a single domian perspective and a lot of wording there seems to imply that conflict resolution must be global per router and does not depend on the RIB/FIB context. Perhaps you are not considering identical SIDs to be used for example by L3VPN customers connecting to SP network with BGP or OSPF and wishing to use SR within their sites. Is this accidental or on purpose ? Can't customers connecting to a given network's different RIBs (via VRFs) use the same SIDs as other customers or for that matter SP itself ? Nothing breaks if they do - as their forwarding is hidden under the SP forwarding, but I see no place in your document to relax conflict resolution in those deployments. Same for CSC. Thx, R. On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Uma – > > > > We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID > advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) – as the sections > you have quoted clearly state. > > > > Why? Because we need consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane. From > forwarding perspective it matters not whether the SID was advertised by > protocol instance #1 or #2 or by an SRMS. What matters is that the SID I > use to determine what label I install in my forwarding plane is the same > SID that my neighbors will use. Otherwise forwarding will be broken. > > > >Les > ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Uma - To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane network-wide in the presence of conflicting advertisements. The set of advertisements includes both SIDs advertised in protocol prefix reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements because problems occur based upon inconsistencies in what is installed in the forwarding plane of different routers. It matters not whether Router A used a SID advertised by a protocol prefix reachability advertisement or by an SRMS advertisement - what matter is whether the SID used is consistent with what the neighbors of Router A use. So simply ensuring that OSPF (for example) resolves SIDs in a consistent way does not fully address the problem space. More inline. From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:59 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Les, With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID conflicts as an "architectural change" and it can severely impact the existing implementations (at least the one I work on). [Les:] It is quite correct - and I can confirm based on personal experience - that support for conflict resolution is a significant effort. Also I have couple of cases where current version of the draft is not clear about resolution. IMO, first we need clarity with in a protocol instance resolution rules before going to resolve the same across protocols (I mentioned few cases below) . Separation of reachability advertisements and SRMS would help "cross protocol" verification of the ranges and SRMS is not applicable to all protocols. In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:11 PM To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Uma - We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) - [Uma]: While you can theoretically do anything for current implementation this kind of cross protocol verification is a new architectural requirement. Because it seems "a central entity" need to gather all different protocol instances SRMS advertisements and should settle with resolution. - Also note SRMS is not applicable for BGP but it seems all prefix SIDs need to be verified with IGP instances SRMS advertisements. Is this true? While the document mostly talks about these and compares with prefix advertisement. [Les:] The issue is protocol agnostic. - Algorithm proposed needs more clarity: Take Section 3.2.4 o " 1. Smaller range wins 2. IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry ... " What happens in case of prefix conflict or SID conflict with only prefix advertisements (range 1). Say multiple prefixes have same SID in one protocol instance and in different protocols. I see 2 levels of resolution required viz., one at within the protocol and one among the protocols. No discussion on this. [Les:] The full set of rules specified in the draft provide deterministic resolution in all cases. You have snipped only the first two rules. If a preference is not obtained based on the first two rules you continue on to rule #3, then rule #4, etc. Similarly in case of SID conflict (range 1), it's not specified which protocol's SID need to be considered. Are you assuming some sort of Admin distance play a role in resolution? [Les:] No - admin distance plays no role here. I don't see any discussion in the document and needs more clarity there too. o Also what happens if a prefix or SID conflict happens with SRMS range 1 and a prefix advertisement (2 cases) a. of one protocol and b. multiple protocols? [Les:] The source of the SID advertisement (what protocol/protocol instance or whether it is SRMS based) plays no role. The tie breaker rules as defined are complete and provide a deterministic answer in all cases. If you believe that is not true please provide a specific example where you apply all the rules in the order specified and still do not determine the preferred entry. - On the below assumption: (Section 3.2.4) "This has the nice property that a single misconfiguratoion of an SRMS entry with a large range will not be preferred over a large number of SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements." While anything can happen in theory, I found it bi
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Les, With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID conflicts as an "architectural change" and it can severely impact the existing implementations (at least the one I work on). Also I have couple of cases where current version of the draft is not clear about resolution. IMO, first we need clarity with in a protocol instance resolution rules before going to resolve the same across protocols (I mentioned few cases below) . Separation of reachability advertisements and SRMS would help "cross protocol" verification of the ranges and SRMS is not applicable to all protocols. In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:11 PM To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Uma - We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) - [Uma]: While you can theoretically do anything for current implementation this kind of cross protocol verification is a new architectural requirement. Because it seems "a central entity" need to gather all different protocol instances SRMS advertisements and should settle with resolution. - Also note SRMS is not applicable for BGP but it seems all prefix SIDs need to be verified with IGP instances SRMS advertisements. Is this true? While the document mostly talks about these and compares with prefix advertisement. - Algorithm proposed needs more clarity: Take Section 3.2.4 o " 1. Smaller range wins 2. IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry ... " What happens in case of prefix conflict or SID conflict with only prefix advertisements (range 1). Say multiple prefixes have same SID in one protocol instance and in different protocols. I see 2 levels of resolution required viz., one at within the protocol and one among the protocols. No discussion on this. Similarly in case of SID conflict (range 1), it's not specified which protocol's SID need to be considered. Are you assuming some sort of Admin distance play a role in resolution? I don't see any discussion in the document and needs more clarity there too. o Also what happens if a prefix or SID conflict happens with SRMS range 1 and a prefix advertisement (2 cases) a. of one protocol and b. multiple protocols? - On the below assumption: (Section 3.2.4) "This has the nice property that a single misconfiguratoion of an SRMS entry with a large range will not be preferred over a large number of SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements." While anything can happen in theory, I found it bit odd to see why SRMS entry is being advertised and for the same prefix, SID is also advertised through reachability advertisements? This is against the spirit of SRMS advertisement, isn't it? While this can happen, it seems we are claiming resolution solution by focusing more on this case in the current version of the document. This is one of the reasons of my first comment below. You got to separate the reachability advertisements and SRMS advertisements; as in principle these are defined for different purposes. I don't see we need algorithm to prefer reachability advertisement over SRMS advertisement (if we don't compare these 2 categories). as the sections you have quoted clearly state. Why? Because we need consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane. From forwarding perspective it matters not whether the SID was advertised by protocol instance #1 or #2 or by an SRMS. What matters is that the SID I use to determine what label I install in my forwarding plane is the same SID that my neighbors will use. Otherwise forwarding will be broken. Les From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:31 PM To: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Dear Authors, Have few comments on the draft: 1. As I indicated during meeting - I am not sure why we have to club verification of SIDs advertised through regular protocol reachability prefixes and the ranges advertised through 'Mapping Server' (SRMS). I didn't see any compelling reason to do this. SIDs advertised through reachability prefixes doesn't have ranges unlike SRMS advertisements. As SRMS advertisements are primarily for nodes which are not SR capable a
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Uma - We are indeed defining conflict resolution across all the SID advertisements regardless of source (protocol or SRMS) - as the sections you have quoted clearly state. Why? Because we need consistent use of SIDs in the forwarding plane. From forwarding perspective it matters not whether the SID was advertised by protocol instance #1 or #2 or by an SRMS. What matters is that the SID I use to determine what label I install in my forwarding plane is the same SID that my neighbors will use. Otherwise forwarding will be broken. Les From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:31 PM To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Dear Authors, Have few comments on the draft: 1. As I indicated during meeting - I am not sure why we have to club verification of SIDs advertised through regular protocol reachability prefixes and the ranges advertised through 'Mapping Server' (SRMS). I didn't see any compelling reason to do this. SIDs advertised through reachability prefixes doesn't have ranges unlike SRMS advertisements. As SRMS advertisements are primarily for nodes which are not SR capable and I feel we should not mix this with nodes which are SR capable. This isolation helps restricting the resolution work primarily for multiple SRMS entries advertised through one node or multiple nodes. SRMS advertisements are indeed little bit unique in that you are advertising "configuration" on behalf of node X from node Y with ranges (both prefix ranges and SID ranges). 2. Regarding the scope of conflict resolution: Section 1 " The problem to be addressed is protocol independent i.e., segment related advertisements may be originated by multiple nodes using different protocols and yet the conflict resolution MUST be the same on all nodes regardless of the protocol used to transport the advertisements." Section 3.2.8 " o In cases where multiple routing protocols are in use mapping entries advertised by all routing protocols MUST be included." This sounds like we are seeking to resolve conflicting entries outside and across the protocols? Each IGP has separate mechanism for advertising mapping entry and I this is not clear with the current version of the draft how we can cross verify SID/Prefix conflict across the protocol. Can you clarify this? -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> > Sent: > Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 > AM > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has > been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not > limited to whether or not you support adoption. We will end the call on April 29, 2016. > Thanks, > > --John and Bruno > > > > __ > __ > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _ Ce mess
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Dear Authors, Have few comments on the draft: 1. As I indicated during meeting - I am not sure why we have to club verification of SIDs advertised through regular protocol reachability prefixes and the ranges advertised through 'Mapping Server' (SRMS). I didn't see any compelling reason to do this. SIDs advertised through reachability prefixes doesn't have ranges unlike SRMS advertisements. As SRMS advertisements are primarily for nodes which are not SR capable and I feel we should not mix this with nodes which are SR capable. This isolation helps restricting the resolution work primarily for multiple SRMS entries advertised through one node or multiple nodes. SRMS advertisements are indeed little bit unique in that you are advertising "configuration" on behalf of node X from node Y with ranges (both prefix ranges and SID ranges). 2. Regarding the scope of conflict resolution: Section 1 " The problem to be addressed is protocol independent i.e., segment related advertisements may be originated by multiple nodes using different protocols and yet the conflict resolution MUST be the same on all nodes regardless of the protocol used to transport the advertisements." Section 3.2.8 " o In cases where multiple routing protocols are in use mapping entries advertised by all routing protocols MUST be included." This sounds like we are seeking to resolve conflicting entries outside and across the protocols? Each IGP has separate mechanism for advertising mapping entry and I this is not clear with the current version of the draft how we can cross verify SID/Prefix conflict across the protocol. Can you clarify this? -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM To: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> > Sent: > Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 > AM > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has > been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not > limited to whether or not you support adoption. We will end the call on April 29, 2016. > Thanks, > > --John and Bruno > > > > __ > __ > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _ 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
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support. From an operator's point of view I see strong need for covering this topic. Best regards, Martin Am 14.04.16 um 09:50 schrieb bruno.decra...@orange.com: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support adoption. Thanks, --John and Bruno _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support adoption... -Jon ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
+1 -Original Message- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 09:51 To: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support adoption. Thanks, --John and Bruno _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support. Regards, Nagendra On 4/14/16, 3:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: >Dear WG, > >As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been >requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. >Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not >limited to whether or not you support adoption. > >Thanks, > >--John and Bruno > > > >__ >___ > >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 >spring@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support. Very much needed Ahmed On 4/14/2016 12:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support adoption. Thanks, --John and Bruno _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Yes/support, very much needed guideline on conflict resolution! > >> -Original Message- >> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> bruno.decra...@orange.com >> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM >> To: spring@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption >> call >> >> > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 >> > AM >> > >> > Dear WG, >> > >> > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has >> > been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. >> > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not >> > limited to whether or not you support adoption. >> >> We will end the call on April 29, 2016. >> >> >> > Thanks, >> > >> > --John and Bruno >> > >> > >> > >> > >> __ >> > >> __ >> > _ >> > >> > 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 >> > spring@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> __ >> __ >> _ >> >> 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 >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >___ >spring mailing list >spring@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support as co-author. Les > -Original Message- > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM > To: spring@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption > call > > > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 > > AM > > > > Dear WG, > > > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has > > been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not > > limited to whether or not you support adoption. > > We will end the call on April 29, 2016. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --John and Bruno > > > > > > > > > __ > > > __ > > _ > > > > 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 > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > __ > __ > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
I support WG adoption. The conflict resolution document is required for standard SID conflict error handling across all protocols and vendors. Thanks, Acee On 4/14/16, 3:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: >Dear WG, > >As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been >requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. >Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not >limited to whether or not you support adoption. > >Thanks, > >--John and Bruno > > > >__ >___ > >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 >spring@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Support the WG adoption as co-author. thanks, Peter On 4/14/16 09:50 , bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support adoption. Thanks, --John and Bruno _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring . ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
as co-author, I support the WG adoption of this draft s. > On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been > requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited > to whether or not you support adoption. > > Thanks, > > --John and Bruno > > > > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 AM > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been > requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to > whether or not you support adoption. We will end the call on April 29, 2016. > Thanks, > > --John and Bruno > > > > __ > __ > _ > > 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 > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
[spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support adoption. Thanks, --John and Bruno _ 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
