martin, can you describe what are the pain points of FRR protecting *all* your traffic (IPv4/IPv6/labeled/unlabeled) ?
why would you want your traffic not being protected ? /hannes On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 05:54:44PM +0100, Martin Horneffer wrote: | Hello everyone, | | I really do see a good use-case for turning on IP-FRR protection for just | one address family, and it does not have anything to do with making IPv6 | customer better or worse than IPv4 customer traffic. | | Consider the IP/MPLS network I have today. Several address families are | active in the backbone, but all customer traffic is carried in MPLS packets | guided by IPv4-signalled LDP. This holds for ANY customer traffic, whether | it is public IPv4, public IPv6, VPNs in IPv4 or IPv6 or L2-VPNs. Unlabeled | IPv4 traffic also exists in the same backbone, but only for routing | protocols themselves, and/or network management. Thus there is no need to | protect this unlabeled IPv4 traffic in the same way as the customer MPLS | traffic. | | In the future, I might activate IPv6 in the backbone and introduce more and | more routing and management protocols with IPv6. Still no need to protect | IPv6. Eventually I might shift LDP (or SR) from IPv4 controlled to IPv6 | controlled. What was IPv6-over-IPv4-controlled-MPLS becomes plain | IPv6-labeled traffic then, and IPv4-labeled traffic will become | IPv4-over-IPv6-controlled-MPLS. At THAT point in time it becomes important | to protect the IPv6 controlled MPLS traffic, and thus the IPv6 address | family in the IGP, but no earlier. | | So please do not mix up control traffic and customer traffic, internal | routing and customer routes. Thank you. | | Best regards, Martin | | | Am 24.02.15 um 16:02 schrieb Hannes Gredler: | >On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 03:55:32PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: | >| I can imagine cases in which the per AF enabling might make sense (e.g. | >| when the network associated w one address family is deemed non-critical). | > | > | >HG> as it is unlikely that operators will tun off IPv4 protection, | > may i have a ask that you repeat that quote above in the 6man | > meeting ;-) ? - effectifely you're saying "IPv6 may be considered | > as less critical", and therefore we SHOULD provide a knob | > to turn protection off. | > | >| | >| | >| Section 5.1 is a SHOULD - as is most of the document. It is therefore a | >| suggestion as to what an implementation should provide. If a given | >| implementer thinks this is either too onerous or not useful they can omit | >| it w/o being in violation. But I see no reason to eliminate this - and in | >| actual practice I would expect the cost of supporting such a knob to be | >| low cost. It is hard for me to see this as controversial. | >| | >| | >| | >| Les | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] | >| Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:10 PM | >| To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura; | >| [email protected] | >| Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required | >| | >| | >| | >| [Les:] I think your point here is that the LFA calculation is AF | >| independent within a given topology - but resources are consumed | >| independent of how many computations are required- giving an operator the | >| ability to determine which prefixes are most critical seems useful. That | >| could be per AF or per prefix. | >| | >| | >| | >| [SLI] Agree but is the "resource saving" point strong enough to mandate | >| per AF activation ? | >| | >| | >| | >| From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [[1]mailto:[email protected]] | >| Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 05:01 | >| To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; | >| [2][email protected] | >| Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required | >| | >| | >| | >| Pushpassis - | >| | >| | >| | >| From: rtgwg [[3]mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pushpasis | >| Sarkar | >| Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:28 AM | >| To: Jeff Tantsura; [4][email protected]; [5][email protected] | >| Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required | >| | >| | >| | >| HI Jeff et al, | >| | >| | >| | >| I can think of a reason to have a knob per-level(or per-area) or per ISIS | >| topology(note in ISIS a topology in ISIS always corresponds to a single | >| AF,) | >| | >| | >| | >| [Les:] This is a common mistake to make. If one simply uses RFC 5308, then | >| IPv6 prefixes can be advertised in the same topology as IPv4 (MTID #0) - | >| and there are implementations which support this. More generally, from the | >| protocol's POV a given topology can support any combinations of address | >| families. It is only a convention because of the reserved MTIDs specified | >| in RFC 5120 that certain MTIDs are "IPv6 only". But if one looks at the | >| protocol capabilities such a restriction does not exist in general. | >| | >| | >| | >| Interestingly you contradicted yourself below. J | >| | >| But I did want to set the record straight on this point - hopefully we are | >| in agreement. | >| | >| | >| | >| and per realm and topology in OSPF. But I cannot think of a reason of why | >| within the same topology we need another set of knobs for each AF. Here, | >| by AF I understand IPV4 or IPv6. | >| | >| | >| | >| When both IPV4 and IPV6 are part of the same IGP topology, there is only | >| one set of backup computations needed to protect both IPV4 and IPv6 | >| traffic. | >| | >| | >| | >| Also I cannot think of any motivation for an operator to turn on | >| protection on only one AF and does not want to turn on for the other even | >| if both AFs has been deployed for normal forwarding. | >| | >| | >| | >| [Les:] I think your point here is that the LFA calculation is AF | >| independent within a given topology - but resources are consumed | >| independent of how many computations are required- giving an operator the | >| ability to determine which prefixes are most critical seems useful. That | >| could be per AF or per prefix. | >| | >| | >| | >| Les | >| | >| | >| | >| Thanks | >| | >| -Pushpasis | >| | >| | >| | >| From: Jeff Tantsura <[6][email protected]> | >| Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 at 12:59 PM | >| To: "[7][email protected]" <[8][email protected]>, | >| "[9][email protected]" <[10][email protected]> | >| Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required | >| | >| | >| | >| Hi Stephane, | >| | >| | >| | >| /chair hat off | >| | >| | >| | >| IMO in disjoined topologies one should have flexibility to enable/disable | >| LFA as per AF. | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| Cheers, | >| | >| Jeff | >| | >| | >| | >| From: "[11][email protected]" | >| <[12][email protected]> | >| Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:21 PM | >| To: "[13][email protected]" <[14][email protected]> | >| Subject: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required | >| | >| | >| | >| Hi Folks, | >| | >| | >| | >| As you know, LFA manageability draft is in final phasis ... | >| | >| The current document states per AF granularity activation as a SHOULD. | >| | >| " | >| | >| [15]5.1. LFA enabling/disabling scope | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| The granularity of LFA activation should be controlled (as alternate | >| | >| nexthop consume memory in forwarding plane). | >| | >| | >| | >| An implementation of LFA SHOULD allow its activation with the | >| | >| following criteria: | >| | >| | >| | >| o Per address-family : ipv4 unicast, ipv6 unicast, LDP IPv4 unicast, | >| | >| LDP IPv6 unicast ... | >| | >| | >| | >| o Per routing context : VRF, virtual/logical router, global routing | >| | >| table, ... | >| | >| | >| | >| " | >| | >| | >| | >| In the framework of ISIS/OSPF yang modelization, we are challenging this | >| statement, do we really need to force implementation to support this | >| "per AF" granularity ? | >| | >| | >| | >| Please provide as soon as possible your feedback on this and also | >| provide clear drivers to support or not per AF activation of LFA. | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| Thanks for your help ! | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| [16]Orange logo | >| | >| | >| | >| Stephane Litkowski | >| Network Architect | >| Orange/SCE/EQUANT/IBNF/ENDD/NDE | >| | >| Orange Expert Future Networks | >| | >| phone: [17]+33 2 23 28 49 83 | >| mobile: [18]+33 6 37 86 97 52 | >| [19][email protected] | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| | >| _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | >| | >| | >| | >| 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. | >| | >| References | >| | >| Visible links | >| 1. mailto:[email protected] | >| 2. mailto:[email protected] | >| 3. mailto:[email protected] | >| 4. mailto:[email protected] | >| 5. mailto:[email protected] | >| 6. mailto:[email protected] | >| 7. mailto:[email protected] | >| 8. mailto:[email protected] | >| 9. mailto:[email protected] | >| 10. mailto:[email protected] | >| 11. mailto:[email protected] | >| 12. mailto:[email protected] | >| 13. mailto:[email protected] | >| 14. mailto:[email protected] | >| 15. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-07#section-5.1 | >| 16. http://www.orange.com/ | >| 17. https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20 | >| 18. https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20 | >| 19. mailto:[email protected] | > | > | > | >| _______________________________________________ | >| rtgwg mailing list | >| [email protected] | >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg | > | >_______________________________________________ | >rtgwg mailing list | >[email protected] | >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg | | ############################################## | | # Mail Account for technical purposes only | | ############################################## | | _______________________________________________ | rtgwg mailing list | [email protected] | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
