Issue clarification: According to chap 5.2 of this document: In a [IngressPE--EgressABR--EgressPE] topology, IngressPE send a Wildcard S-PMSI(*,*) route with PTA(flag<LIR+LIR-pF>), whose NLRI is donated as SPMSI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE). This SPMSI route will be relayed by EgressABR to EgressPE with PTA flag untouched. Then EgressPE will generate ONE LeafAD route with NLRI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>, and N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>.
Then according to chap 5.3 of this document: EgressABR will only send a Leaf A-D route. I guess, the said "a Leaf A-D route" should be the ONE of LeafAD(type<0/1/2RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressABR) with RT<EgressABR>. Then how should EgressABR deal with the the N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> ? It is not clarified in RFC7524 either. See chap 7.1 of RFC7524, which only clarify LeafAD route with type<0/1/2>RD. Should such LeafAD route with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR ? And then 'relay' back to IngressPE, and thus enable IngressPE explicit tracking inside the ingress "segmentation domain" ? Question clarification: (1) Should such LeafAD routes with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR ? This draft does not describe this. (2) If the said Leaf A-D routes (with RD type 16/17/18) be installed by EgressABR, then according to your answer, the Leaf A-D routes (with RT changed) will be 'relay' back to IngressPE. Right? This draft does not describe this either. (3) If the above two are correct, then We can use PTA<type=NoTnlInfo, flag=LIR+LIRpF> in segmented P-tunnels scenario? But <draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-09> seems to imply that LIR-pF flag can't be used in Segmented P-tunnels scenario. Its chap 2.2.2 requires that, LIR-pF Flag is used only when non segmented P-tunnels are used. Thanks. XieJingrong From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:49 PM To: Xiejingrong <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03 I apologize for the delay in answering this message. On 12/21/2017 4:22 AM, Xiejingrong wrote: I have a comment on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03. The chap 5.3 of this document said: Furthermore, if the PTA specifies "no tunnel info", the LIR and LIR-pF flags in the PTA MUST be passed along unchanged. This will ensure that an egress ABR/ASBR only sends a Leaf A-D route in response to a "match for tracking" if it is on the path to an egress PE for the flow(s) identified in the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. The issue is as follow: In a [IngressPE--EgressABR--EgressPE] topology, IngressPE send a Wildcard S-PMSI(*,*) route with PTA(flag<LIR+LIR-pF>), whose NLRI is donated as SPMSI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE). This SPMSI route will be relayed by EgressABR to EgressPE with PTA flag untouched. Then EgressPE will generate ONE LeafAD route with NLRI(type<0/1/2>RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> and N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR>. All according to chap 5.2 of this document. Then according to chap 5.3 of this document: IngressABR will only send a Leaf A-D route, It should be the ONE of LeafAD(type<0/1/2RD,*,*,IngressPE,EgressABR) with RT<IngressABR>. In the example above, there is an "EgressABR" but not an "IngressABR". So I'm not completely sure that I understand your question. Then how should IngressABR deal with the the N(N>=0) LeafAD routes with NLRI(type<16/17/18>RD,S,G,IngressPE,EgressPE) and RT<EgressABR> ? It is not clarified in RFC7524 either. See chap 7.1 of RFC7524, which only clarify LeafAD route with type<0/1/2>RD. Should such LeafAD route with type<16/17/18>RD be accepted and installed by EgressABR, and then 'relay' back to IngressPE, and thus enable IngressPE explicit tracking inside the ingress "segmentation domain" ? The intention is the following. Suppose an egress ABR/ASBR satisfies the following two conditions: 1. It has installed an S-PMSI A-D route with the following properties: - its NLRI has wildcards for S and G, - its NLRI specifies PE1 as the ingress PE, - its PTA specifies "no tunnel info" and has LIR-pF set. 2. It has installed one or more Leaf A-D routes whose NLRI specifies (S,G) with PE1 as ingress PE Then the ABR/ASBR should originate a Leaf A-D route (with RD type 16/17/18) specifying (S,G) with ingress PE1. The Leaf A-D route would be withdrawn when one of these conditions no longer holds. Does this answer your question?
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
