Peter -
The requirement Shraddha specified was to not allow a particular class of
service ("heavy bandwidth services" was the example provided) to use certain
links in the topology. My point is that advertising a flag for a given prefix
which says "do not calculate a repair path for this prefix" does not help
achieve this. Once the network reconverges following the failure of one of the
links on which "heavy bandwidth services" is allowed/preferred it is quite
likely that the new best path will be over a link on which "heavy bandwidth
services" is NOT allowed/preferred. This will happen whether you have the new
flag or not - so the flag will have no lasting effect. It would only affect
traffic flow during the brief period during which the network is reconverging.
I think you and I are actually in agreement - I am simply sending a stronger
negative message - not only do I think the flag is not useful - I think it does
not achieve the goal Shraddha has in mind.
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde;
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Hi Les,
I believe the idea is not to exclude any particular link, it's actually much
simpler - do not calculate backup for the prefix if the flag is set.
I'm still not quite sure how useful above is, but technically it is possible.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/30/14 17:22 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Shraddha -
>
> When performing a best path calculation whether a given link is in the set of
> best paths (to be protectedED) or not (could be used as a protectING path) is
> a function of the topology - not the link. If there is a topology change it
> is quite likely that a given link will change from being a protectED link to
> being a protectING link (or vice versa). So what you propose regarding
> node-SIDs would not work.
>
> In the use case you mention below if you don't want a certain class of
> traffic to flow on a given link it requires a link attribute which is
> persistent across topology changes. There are ways to do that - using
> Adj-SIDs is one of them. But using node-SIDs in the way you propose is NOT.
>
> Les
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:12 PM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Peter,
>
>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which do
>> not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>
>> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such service
>> would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>
> Heavy bandwidth services are potential candidates. The network is well
> planned and well provisioned for primary path but same is not true for backup
> paths.
> Diverting heavy bandwidth services along protection path can disrupt the
> other services on that path, they are better-off un-protected so that an
> event in the network Would result in disconnection and a retry for such
> services.
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:35 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde;
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Shraddha,
>
> On 12/29/14 10:06 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which do
>> not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>
> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such service
> would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>> So when the originator of node-sid signals un-protected path requirement,
>> there is always an unprotected path.
>>
>> Regarding the protected path, it is the default behavior as it exists today.
>> You get protection if it's available otherwise you don't get protection.
>>
>> In fact, you can have the new flag to say "NP flag" meaning non-protected
>> flag which can be set for the unprotected path.
>> By default it remains off and gives the behavior as it exists today.
>>
>>
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:26 PM
>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>
>> Shraddha,
>>
>> I do not see how an originator of the node-sid can mandate a protection for
>> the prefix on other routers. What if there is no backup available on a
>> certain node along the path?
>>
>> The parallel with the B-flag in adj-sids is not right - in case of adj-sid
>> the originator has the knowledge about the local adjacency protection and as
>> such can signal it it it's LSA.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 12/29/14 09:47 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>>
>>> Pls see inline.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> Shraddha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:02 PM
>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>
>>> Shraddha,
>>>
>>> I do not see how an originator can set any flag regarding the protection of
>>> the locally attached prefix.
>>> <Shraddha> The originator advertises 2 node-sids. One with p flag set and
>>> the other without the p-flag set.
>>>
>>> It's all the routers on the path towards such prefix that need to deal
>>> with the protection.
>>> <Shraddha> The receiving nodes will download protected path for the
>>> node-sid with p-flag set and download Unprotected path for the node-sid
>>> with p-flag unset.
>>>
>>> Signaling anything from the originator seems useless.
>>> <Shraddha> For node-sids it's the others who need to build the forwarding
>>> plane but it's only the originator who can signal which of
>>> Sid need to be built with protection and which
>>> not. Other routers on the path cannot signal this information.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> With this you have two paths for the node. One is protected and the other
>>> is unprotected. This meets the requirement of having an un-protected path.
>>>
>>> It's very much in parallel to B-flag in adj-sids. It is similar to
>>> advertising multiple adj-sids one with B-flag on and other with b-flag off
>>> , to get protected and unprotected Adj-sids.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 12/29/14 09:26 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>> Yes.You are right.
>>>>
>>>> Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means build a
>>>> path and provide protection.
>>>> If this is off it means build a path with no protection.
>>>> The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on this
>>>> flag.
>>>>
>>>> The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with p
>>>> flag on or off based on the need of the service.
>>>> Rgds
>>>> Shraddha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM
>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>
>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>
>>>> the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not
>>>> advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the
>>>> prefix is locally attached.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while
>>>>> building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason
>>>>> could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected
>>>>> node-sid that this service can make use of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service
>>>>> endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of
>>>>> representing unprotected paths.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rgds
>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>>
>>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>>
>>>>> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly
>>>>> attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the
>>>>>> label is protected or not.
>>>>>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to
>>>>>> indicate whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
>>>>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>> Rgds
>>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>>>> isis...@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
