Thanks Hannes – this is exactly what I was suggesting rather than advertising
the BGP-LS information in the IGPs.
Acee
From: Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 3:14 AM
To: "liu.ya...@zte.com.cn" <liu.ya...@zte.com.cn>
Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, "zzhang_i...@hotmail.com"
<zzhang_i...@hotmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment"
-draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02
Yao,
BGP-LS was designed to solve also the distribution of link-state information
between BGP speakers (see Figure 1 from RFC 7752 below).
Just ask yourself: why would one want to use a point to multipoint state
replication protocol as complex as BGP for *just* client server alike
replication ?
We wanted from day-1 to leverage the graph independent replication abilities of
BGP - so doing inter BGP-LS graphs is a legit use-case.
HTH,
/hannes
---
The collection of link-state and TE information and its distribution
to consumers is shown in the following figure.
+-----------+
| Consumer |
+-----------+
^
|
+-----------+
| BGP | +-----------+
| Speaker | | Consumer |
+-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
+---------------+ | +-------------------+ |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| BGP | | BGP | | BGP |
| Speaker | | Speaker | . . . | Speaker |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
IGP IGP IGP
Figure 1: Collection of Link-State and TE Information
---
On 29.07.2020, at 03:57, liu.ya...@zte.com.cn<mailto:liu.ya...@zte.com.cn>
wrote:
Hi Acee,
Thanks for reading the draft.
Yes, the main purpose of this draft is to carry the segment segment information
via IGP so only one node per AS need to be connected with the controller
through BGP-LS.
With the existing BGP-LS extension draft, it is certainly one solution to
configure BGP sessions between all the service function nodes and controller,
and each node sends the SF information to the controller individually.
And if I get you right, we can also select one node to have a BGP session with
the controller and configure BGP sessions between the selected node and SF
nodes.
But how the selected node get the SF information from SF nodes via BGP needs to
be solved, since BGP-LS is typically used for exchanging information between
the south and north rather than nodes of the same level, and there's no other
existing BGP extension for distribute SIDs information between nodes .
This draft aims to provide an alternate way if the operators prefer running IGP
on SF nodes.
So we would like to collect comments on the WG session to see how others think
about it.
Regards,
Yao
原始邮件
发件人：AceeLindem(acee) <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
收件人：刘尧00165286;zzhang_i...@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_i...@hotmail.com>
<zzhang_i...@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_i...@hotmail.com>>;
抄送人：lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>;
日 期 ：2020年07月29日 01:53
主 题 ："IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment"
-draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02
Speaking as WG member:
It seems the sole purpose of this draft is to get service segment information
from nodes in the IGP domain to the IGP node that has a BGP session with the
controller. You don’t need to put this information into the IGP in order to do
this. Simply configure BGP sessions for the BGP-LS AF between the nodes with
service functions and the node selected to have a BGP session with the
controller.
Speaking as WG Chair – please let me know if we can omit this draft from the
agenda.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
