< also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs >

Hi Thomas/All,

I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective.

What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was 
signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS - what matters and is 
more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly any deployments would be 
running multiple protocols and learning the same prefix from different IGPs. 
IPFIX may be picking this information from a FIB in some implementation where 
the protocol does not matter and this information is not available therein.

On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and IGP - what 
would we use/show?

I would recommend using SR Prefix SID, SR Adjacency SID, SR Binding SID, SR BGP 
Peering SID and so on ... for the MPLS Label Type.

This also takes away the need for the second table that is being proposed to a 
large extent. For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in some cases 
not possible to different between Prefix and Node and Anycast SID. Many of 
these types are control plane elements and we can be sure more get added. Is 
there really much value in differentiation between say an Adjacency SID and LAN 
Adjacency SID?

Could we evaluate the implementation overhead and complexity of this level of 
categorization/information in IPFIX against their value in flow analysis to 
perhaps consider a middle ground?

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: 31 July 2020 20:52
To: han...@gredler.at
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Hi Hannes,

Thanks a lot for the feedback. Yes, makes completely sense. Will take it for 
the next update..

Best Wishes
Thomas


From: Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at<mailto:han...@gredler.at>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:31 AM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF 
<thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Thomas,

I have one comment/suggestion to Paragraph 4 (IANA Considerations).

Please add also a code point for BGP Prefix-SID - it's quite popular in DC 
deployments.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8669<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8669&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801837133&sdata=NxcbyIGgKrjPmh5OZ5muKulfmzuM%2FlPvGo76WzrHpBM%3D&reserved=0>

thanks,

/hannes

On 28.07.2020, at 10:11, 
thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> wrote:

Dear lsr,

I presented the following draft

Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information 
Export (IPFIX)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=FhF3AgFGrHvqAYQ7Ec73TpqcQkeHzE9ZOMFGC8cuuDg%3D&reserved=0>

at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=QZYs1ZXZuBy5cFfvXmrLnu00%2FQF0TiJbBgWHC%2Ffteic%3D&reserved=0>

and today at OPSAWG where I call for adoption.

This draft adds additional segment routing code points for in the IANA IPFIX 
registry for IS-IS, OPSFv2 and OPSF v3 and segment routing SID types to gain 
further insights into the MPLS-SR forwarding-plane.

I have been asked to not only gather feedback from spring and opsawg but also 
from lsr and mpls working groups since these code points are related to link 
state routing protocols and mpls data plane.

I am looking forward to your feedback and input.

Best Wishes
Thomas Graf
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf76df67b9faf4c04426908d83391629e%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637316046801847088&sdata=Twb%2F%2BDFnQxElkufzSIVWszZ54cphIssBgO2vawPRYT8%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to