Thanks a lot for the comments
See inline #Ahmed
Thanks
Ahmed
On 4/10/19 1:25 PM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote:
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) This first point is a cross-document DISCUSS. In short, the assumptions in
this document about what an MCC is responsible for are not in line with the
corresponding IGP drafts for OSPF [1][2] and IS-IS [3]. This misalignment must
be resolved before any of these documents are published.
[Note: I'll start a thread with the corresponding WGS, Authors, Shepherds,
Chairs and ADs. Let's please discuss this point there.]
This document uses the following definition in §2: "We call "MPLS Control Plane
Client (MCC)" any control plane entity installing forwarding entries in the
MPLS data plane. IGPs with SR extensions...are examples of MCCs."
The focus of the IGP drafts is on the transport of the SR information, and not
on other functions (see below). Which component is responsible for what is the
point that needs clarification -- either in this document, the IGP drafts, or
both.
These are some specific cases:
(1.1) §2.4 (Mapping a SID Index to an MPLS label): "The following rules MUST be
applied by the MCC when calculating the MPLS label value corresponding the SID
index value "I"." There's nothing in the IGP extension documents that point at
this set of rules, and only a passing reference in the OSPF documents about
outgoing labels.
(1.2) §2.5 (Incoming Label Collision) also assumes more functions from an MCC
than what the IGP documents do. For example: "Within an MCC, apply
tie-breaking rules to select one FEC only and assign the label to it."
(1.3) §2.8 also expects work by the IGPs: "the MCC is responsible for
downloading the correct label value to FIB"...in this case not just calculating
the label, but installing it in the FIB.
(1.4) §2.10.1: "The method by which the MCC on router "R0" determines that PUSH
or CONTINUE operation must be applied using the SID "Si" is beyond the scope of
this document. An example of a method to determine the SID "Si" for PUSH
operation is the case where IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]..." Note that the IS-IS draft (or
the OSPF ones, for that matter) don't talk about how to determine the operation
-- if that is out of scope of this document, then where is it specified?
#Ahmed
Martin (thanks a lot) replied to these points. I hope his reply is
satisfactory
(1.5) From §2:
An implementation SHOULD check that an IGP node-SID is not associated
with a prefix that is owned by more than one router within the same
routing domain. If so, it SHOULD NOT use this Node-SID, MAY use
another one if available, and SHOULD log an error.
rfc8402 reads (§3.2): "An IGP Node-SID MUST NOT be associated with a prefix
that is owned by more than one router within the same routing domain." The
text above is not in line with that (MUST NOT vs SHOULD). Also, how can
"SHOULD check" be Normatively enforced?
#Ahmed: I removed the paragraph since I agree that RFC8402 is sufficient
Both sentences above seem to be trying to specify a behavior for the IGPs.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
[2]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions
(2) §2.5.1: According to §2.5, a "tie-breaking rule MUST be deterministic".
However, the specification of the default rules are not: the first step uses
the administrative distance, but the specification says that "the FEC types are
ordered using the default administrative distance ordering defined by the
implementation"...and later that the "user SHOULD ensure that the same
administrative distance preference is used on all routers". The combination of
different implementations and the lack of an absolute requirement to ensure
consistency can easily be non-deterministic.
This point is related to the text in §2.6 which talks about how "the ingress
node MUST resolve" collisions the same way. Because of the lack of an absolute
requirement for consistency, this "MUST" doesn't guarantee the same result.
#Ahmed:
I think there is a misunderstanding in this point. The objective of the
tie breaking rules as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph in page 9 is
determinism on any given router. I.e. on any router, if the same set of
FECs are mapped to a label "L1", then that label L1 is assigned the same
FEC irrespective of the order by which the FECs-to-label mappings are
received. Hence even if different routers have different administrative
distances (default or otherwise), if a router receives the mappings from
the same set of FECs to the same label "L1", the router will always
assign the same FEC to the label "L1" irrespective of the order by which
these mappings are received
Hence the whether routers use the same or different administrative
distances has no bearing on deterministically assigning the same label
to the same FEC on each router.
The tie-breaking rules as they are written in the draft will result in
determinism on any given router. If you think otherwise it would be
great to point out the flaw(s) and we will be very happy to correct it
(them)
Also related is this text in §2.5.1: "All routers in a routing domain SHOULD
use the same tie-breaking rules to maximize forwarding consistency." When
would all routers not use the same rules? It seems to me that forwarding
consistency is very important and would want to be maximized all the time.
IOW, why not use MUST?
I'm making this point a DISCUSS item because it is directly related to the
ability of multiple implementations to interoperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) §2.2: "A global segment MUST be a label, or an index which may be mapped to
an MPLS label within the Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB)..." I don't think
this sentence fragment is clear: the intent is surely to say that the global
segment MUST be mapped within the SRGB (and not that it "MUST be a label"),
right? Suggestion: s/A global segment MUST be a label, or an index which may
be mapped/A global segment is a label, or an index which MUST be mapped
#Ahmed: Actually no. It is possible that an index could not be mapped
into an SRGB on some routers, e.g. because the SRGB is too small or
because of incoming label collision. But I agree with the first part of
the sentence so I changed it to "is" in the latest version
(2) §2.5: "Suppose an anycast prefix...the advertisement of the prefix-SID by
some, but not all, of advertising nodes SHOULD NOT be treated as a label
collision." I'm not sure how the receiver knows if the SID was advertised "by
some, but not all"...or even if the prefix is being used as anycast. Given the
Normative language, please explain. IOW, please clarify the difference between
a duplicate prefix-SID and an anycast prefix. The use of "SHOULD NOT" above
seems to imply that there are cases when the situation should be treated as a
label collision...what are those cases?
#Ahmed: You're right. I'll replace"SHOULD" with "MUST"
I have not used the term "duplicate prefix-SID" anywhere.
(3) §2.5: "The remaining FECs with the default algorithm...are installed in the
FIB...without any incoming labels..." What will these entries be used for?
Given that we're talking about an MPLS network, there may be no traffic that
matches the FEC (the traffic should be labeled)...if that is the case, then why
install in the FIB at all? OTOH, if there is a possibility that unlabeled
traffic is received, then this entry (meant for a different purpose) could be
used...also not an ideal situation.
#Ahmed: I replaced "is" with "may be"
§2.6 makes the case that in order "to minimize the chance of misforwarding, a
FEC that loses its incoming label...MUST NOT be installed in FIB". This
inconsistency adds strength to my questions above.
#Ahmed: The sentence adds "based on the losing SID". This means for
example it can be installed natively (e.g. pure IPv4/6 prefix) without
any local or outgoing label or with a local and outgoing LDP label.
(4) §2.5.1: "if more than one competing FEC remains after step 1, select the
smallest numerical FEC value" What value? Are you referring to the FEC type
(introduced later in this section)? If so, please be explicit and consistent.
#Ahmed: I added the sentence "The numerical value of the FEC is
determined according to the FEC encoding described later in this section"
(5) §2.5.2.1: The illustration seems incomplete as the rules in §2.5.2 say that
"the receiving instance MUST compute its local label", but in this case "B
decides not to advertise any index". The second part of the example (in
§2.5.2.2) seems to complete the scenario. It seems confusing to me that the
first part shows an incomplete case...or am I misinterpreting the rules?
#Ahmed: I modified the bullet after the "Else" statement in section
2.5.2. I hope this modification is satisfactory
(6) §2.7: "PUSH, NEXT, and CONTINUE...The specifications of these operations
can be found in [RFC8402]. This sub-section specifies how to implement each of
these operations in the MPLS forwarding plane." It seems contradictory that
the specification is in two places... In any case, I think that this section
is unnecessary as it doesn't seem to add anything from what rfc8402 already
explains.
#Ahmed: The section specifies more details that are requested by other
members of the WG. For example it specifies the TTL and TC . It also
refers to sections 2.10 and 2.11 and discusses mirror SID. But to ensure
connectedness between this two document, I added the clause " As
described in [RFC8402], " at the beginning of each subsection
(7) Nits...
s/flooding mechanisms of link state IGPs fits/flooding mechanisms of link state
IGPs fit
s/to have a node segment to reach the node/to have a node segment reach the node
s/per routing instance, topology, algorithm/per routing instance, topology, or
algorithm
s/except rule/except the rule
s/local label serves/a local label serves
s/subTLVs/sub-TLVs
s/Remaining FECs/The remaining FECs
s/installed in FIB/installed in the FIB
s/lowest value SHOULD be/lowest value SHOULD be:
s/SR Algorithm,)/SR Algorithm)
#Ahmed: Fixed (thanks a lot)
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
