Hi Acee, Please let’s firstly align on the same use case we discussed. I talked about the TE. And the path computation entity can use the IFIT capability information for the path decision. On the other hand if the path is decided, the capability information can help the entity to deploy a suitable IFIT option. So did you talk about the BE? Node only know the next hop, not the whole path. So the management system need the trace to get the path information. How BE could use the IFIT capability is another use case. Is this you want to know?
Tianran From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:04 PM To: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? Tianran, You keep missing my point. Even if the potential transit nodes advertise the capability, the management function doesn’t know which nodes will be transited in the path. Hence, you’re second use case is misguided. Acee From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:51 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? Hi Acee, Tracing is of course useful. Here we also consider to combine the traffic engineering and monitoring. So the transit nodes are visible. For the loose TE, the intermediate SR nodes construct the segment monitoring. Tianran From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:29 AM To: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? Speaking as WG member: With respect to your use case for transit router advertisement… What I was unsuccessfully trying to articulate to you during the interim was that the management system will typically not know the exact path between two endpoints so the use case is flawed. In fact, many times tracing is used by the management system to discover the path – as in traceroute… Thanks, Acee From: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? Hi Acee, About the “IFIT specific information channel”, as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit/ we propose to use bgp enabled sr-policy for IFIT auto deployment. It’s reasonable to incorporate both traffic engineering and monitoring. Thanks, Tianran 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2020年4月7日 2:54 收件人: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 抄送: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? Speaking as WG member – It seems that additional IFIT-specific information is required to make this useful and the IGPs are certainly not the case. Additionally, the point was made that an IFIT specific information channel would anyway be required to provision the telemetry generation. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? +1 Please do not take my comments about link vs node capabilities, as support for the solution, they are semantical. Cheers, Jeff On Apr 6, 2020, 8:58 AM -0700, Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, wrote: This discussion is interesting, but please do not ignore the considerable feedback from multiple folks indicating that this advertisement does not belong in the IGP at all (regardless of scope). My opinion on that has not changed. +1 IS-IS is not the correct place to implement Service Discovery mechanisms. The management plane already has ample mechanisms for service and capability discovery. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
