As mentioned, you could not be aware of all the constraints that we have and BGP 3107 is not an option. Note that this kind of redistribution can even happen within a single AS. We had some OSPF domain prefixes leaked in the ISIS L2 in the past in a single AS. Nothing prevents this design to come back again.
From: 徐小虎(义先) [mailto:xiaohu....@alibaba-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 09:35 To: spring; Aijun Wang; LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; lsr@ietf.org Cc: spr...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc If I understood it correctly, draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-00 is an OSPF counterpart of RFC7794 from the perspective of correlation of prefixes and their originator in the inter-area scenario. As such, these two drafts are useful for the usage of ELC in the inter-area scenario. As for the inter-AS scenario, IMHO, BGP LSP over SR LSP is the best choice. In other words, I doubt the necessity of advertising the ELC across ASes VIA IGP REDISTRIBUTION. Best regards, Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Send Time:2018年11月20日(星期二) 14:52 To:Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; stephane.litkow...@orange.com <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>; lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org> Cc:spr...@ietf.org <spr...@ietf.org> Subject:Re: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc Aijun – In the inter-AS case, what is needed is to know ELC of the originating node. Simply knowing who the originator of an advertisement is not sufficient. If ELC is advertised as a node capability, then a controller with access to BGP-LS database for both ASs could determine ELC by piecing together the node capability advertisement and the prefix advertisement w originating router-id. But what Stephane has proposed for the inter-AS case is a way to know ELC in the absence of a controller. This means nodes in AS #1 need to have ELC capability info for nodes in AS #2. As there is no way to redistribute IGP Node Capability advertisements between different IGP instances, the alternative is to advertise ELC associated with a prefix advertisement since the prefix advertisement can be redistributed between IGP instances. Knowing the originator of the prefix is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Hope this is clear. Les From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org Cc: spr...@ietf.org Subject: 答复: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc Hi, Les and Stephane: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-00 is trying to solve what you are concerning for. As you said, ELC/ERLD are functionally node capabilities, but when we try to send traffic, we should consider the prefixes itself. The above draft proposal to add prefix originator to address this. After getting this information, the receiver can then build the relationship between prefixes and ELC/ERLD. Best Regards. Aijun Wang Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China. 发件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2018年11月20日 2:00 收件人: stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>; l...@ietf..org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> 抄送: spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org> 主题: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc Stephane – The use case for this proposal is to support inter-AS scenarios in the absence of a controller. If the WG agrees that this use case needs to be addressed I believe the proposal below is a good and viable compromise. I say “compromise” because – as you mention below – ELC/ELRD are functionally node capabilities. But the inter-AS use case requires signaling between AS’s and the vehicle we have for doing that is a prefix advertisement. The compromise is to advertise ELC associated with a prefix – but not do so for ERLD. This seems reasonable to me. One change to what you state below – I think “when a prefix is leaked or redistributed, the ELC associated to the prefix MUST also be leaked/redistributed.”. Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 6:30 AM To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Cc: spr...@ietf.org<mailto:spr...@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc Hi WG, Some discussions occurred on the mailing list on how to encode the entropy label capability for SR but we hadn’t found a consensus on the target solution. IETF 103 was the opportunity to meet face to face various people that have participated to this discussion. Following this discussion, we are coming with the following proposal that the WG need to validate: The entropy label capability is still considered as a per node property (for simplicity reason, we do not want to have an ELC per linecard). The ERLD is considered as a per node property (for simplicity reason, we do not want to have an ERLD per linecard). However IGPs may advertise prefixes that are not belonging to the node itself in addition to the local prefixes of the nodes. A typical use case is when two IGP domains (running the same protocol or a different one) are redistributing routes between each other. The inter-area use case is also creating a similar situation. When an ingress node pushes an entropy label below a segment it must ensure that the tail-end of the segment is entropy label capable otherwise packets will be dropped. As a consequence, when prefixes are redistributed, the entropy label capability of the node who has firstly originated the prefix, should be associated to the prefix during the redistribution. In terms of encoding, we propose to associate an entropy label capability for each prefix advertised by a node. The entropy label capability will be encoded as part of the Prefix Attributes IGP extension (RFC7794 and RFC7684). The entropy label capability may be set for local prefixes (e.g. loopbacks) by a local configuration and for leaked/redistributed prefixes. When a prefix is leaked or redistributed, the ELC associated to the prefix may be also leaked/redistributed. An ingress should set the entropy label below a Node/Prefix segment only if the prefix associated to the Node/Prefix segment as the ELC set in the Prefix Attributes. An ingress should set the entropy label below an Adjacency segment only if the adjacent neighbor of the node that has advertised the Adj SID is advertising an ERLD (and so is entropy label capable). For the binding SID, as IGPs are not involved in the signaling of the binding SID, there is nothing to do in these drafts. Let us know your comments/feedback on this proposal so we can progress these documents. Brgds, Stephane _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
