Bruno,
Snipped...
1. draft-ietf-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
"If the Node-SID or Prefix-SID becomes
unreachable, the event and resulting forwarding changes should not
communicated to the forwarding planes on all configured routers
(including PLRs for the failed node) until the hold-timer expires."
* It's not crystal clear to me how it would work in reality, so I would
welcome more prescriptive text. In particular:
* "node failure" is not an IGP message. IGP nodes sees multiple
"adjacency loss" messages which are not atomic and could be handled in multiple
SPFs. Hence different nodes will freeze their FIB based on a different topology
(link1 for some, link2 for others) leading to inconsistent routing and
forwarding loops.
<SH> I will add text to capture this point and also add detailed text on
possible solutions.
* How is the FIB modified in cases of consecutives IGP events? (freezed
on hold topology may lead to drops, updating entries would need to be specified.
<SH> Agreed.
* On a side node, this text requires a global behavior of all IGP nodes.
That seem a bit out of scope of a non-normative sentence, in an informational
document, describing a local behavior on the PLR.
<SH> I don't think we need any protocol extension for solutions described in
this document but if WG thinks it should be a standard rather than
informational
we should upgrade this document status IMO.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 6:56 PM
To: [email protected]; 'SPRING WG' <[email protected]>; Huzhibo
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG adoption call -
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi authors of both documents, WG,
[Speaking as individual contributor.]
It's good to see technical discussions on the restoration of failed SIDs used
by SR policy.
1. From a functional point of view, can we summarize the benefit to signal
the node proxy capability?
e.g.
- drop the traffic earlier if the PLR does not support proxy capability. (helps
with congestion)
- use another proxy off the shortest path (increase congestion but reduce loss)
- possibly help identifying the proxy (nominal is not in the reachable topology
anymore)
...
Or agree on the absence of significant benefits?
1. draft-ietf-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
"If the Node-SID or Prefix-SID becomes
unreachable, the event and resulting forwarding changes should not
communicated to the forwarding planes on all configured routers
(including PLRs for the failed node) until the hold-timer expires."
* It's not crystal clear to me how it would work in reality, so I would
welcome more prescriptive text. In particular:
* "node failure" is not an IGP message. IGP nodes sees multiple
"adjacency loss" messages which are not atomic and could be handled in multiple
SPFs. Hence different nodes will freeze their FIB based on a different topology
(link1 for some, link2 for others) leading to inconsistent routing and
forwarding loops.
* How is the FIB modified in cases of consecutives IGP events? (freezed
on hold topology may lead to drops, updating entries would need to be specified.
* On a side node, this text requires a global behavior of all IGP nodes.
That seem a bit out of scope of a non-normative sentence, in an informational
document, describing a local behavior on the PLR.
1. draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
Rather than defining a new "Proxy Forwarding" capability in IGP why don't you
use the existing Mirroring Segment (from RFC
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8402#section-5.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8402*section-5.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TiIGZ1oWfUzj6AIX35pvSwyD9BhU_1E0xwkRheX14PjuGLhIolaoExk2oKxHlihC$>)
whose signaling is already standardized?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8667#section-2.4.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8667*section-2.4.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TiIGZ1oWfUzj6AIX35pvSwyD9BhU_1E0xwkRheX14PjuGLhIolaoExk2oLCHtOYr$>
1. What about the following solution:
* Use mirror SID
* Tunnel to the "proxy-forwarding" advertising mirror SID
I would see the following benefits:
* No new protocol extensions (cf "3)"
* Consistent routing in case of multiple SPFs (cf "2)")
* Benefit from the signaling of the proxy (cf "1)")
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
Orange Restricted
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:13 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'SPRING WG'
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] WG adoption call -
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
Hi,
I'm NOT supporting this draft for the following reasons:
1. The WG already have a WG document which is dealing with this problem, I
don't think that WG should come with multiple documents/solutions for the same
solution space as it may just confuse the industry and create deployment issues
as different vendors may pick different solutions.
1. Adding protocols extensions adds complexity in the solution without
adding a strong value.
The document claims that "[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] ...
may not work for some cases such as some of nodes in the network not supporting
this solution.". While this is true, the proposed solution in
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding has exactly the same caveat
and requires all nodes in the network to support the solution.
Considering the following straight line network: A -B -C -D - E - F - G -H and
an SR policy from A to H using SID_G, routers A to F have to support the
extension to make the solution working, if one of the router doesn't support
the extension, traffic will be dropped.
Then, there is no value compared to the timer-based solution of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
Authors of draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding argued that G may
have multiple upstream neighbors let's say F and F' and the solution allows for
F' to support the extension while F may not support, so the solution will send
the traffic to F'. Well yes, but this still requires all routers upstream to F'
to support this extension and maybe F is on the path to F'. So, I don't think
the argument is valid as it may possibly work tactically depending on the
network topology when we look at a small portion of the network, but when we
look at the whole network, operator will have to upgrade all their nodes to
support the extension to ensure the benefit is there.
In addition, in term of traffic, forwarding traffic to a neighbor of the failed
node which wasn't initially on the path, could lead to traffic congestion or
high traffic peaks on links that were not sized to carry this traffic. We could
easily expect some traffic tromboning, where traffic goes to this non-natural
neighbor of the failed node and then goes back over some part of the same path
before reaching the destination.
So these protocol extensions are bringing complexity for no value here.
1. Regarding BSID, I'm not fan of advertising BSIDs in IGP as there may be
hundreds or thousands of BSID on a node which again will create a lot of burden
in IGP. The proposed way will have to be discussed in LSR, not in SPRING (see
next comment).
Note that [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] could also work with
BSIDs as long as BSID information of failed node is available in the
control-plane of PLRs by whatever mechanism. I think this BSID handling is
orthogonal to the proxy-forwarding controlplane behavior. The forwarding
operations for BSID will have to be discussed more in details, we could not
expect all HW to be able to do 3 or 4 lookups without any perf degradation.
1. The document is currently a bit borderline between SPRING and LSR as it
talks in good details about IGP protocol extensions. If it's a SPRING doc, it
should detail reqs for protocols but nothing beyond.
Brgds,
Stephane
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: jeudi 13 janvier 2022 11:19
To: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [spring] WG adoption call -
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
Dear WG,
This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call, ending 27/01/2022, for
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TiIGZ1oWfUzj6AIX35pvSwyD9BhU_1E0xwkRheX14PjuGLhIolaoExk2oKTgLzsj$>
After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption
of the document to the mailing list.
Please also provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack thereof) as this
is a stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this is not a vote.
If you are willing to work on or review the document, please state this
explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication of the energy level of people
in the working group willing to work on the document.
Thanks!
Bruno, Jim, Joel
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
