Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt

Hi Ketan,


On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:48 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Nandan,
>
>
>
> Will adding the following text in Sec 5 address your concern?
>
>
>
> An SR Policy update that is determined to be not acceptable, and therefore
> malformed, based on rules described in section 4.2.1 MUST be handled by the
> "treat-as-withdraw" strategy.
>
Yes, I think adding this text makes things clearer!

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Nandan Saha <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* 20 November 2019 11:02
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Prakash Badrinarayanan <[email protected]>;
> Manoharan Sundaramoorthy <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>  Please see inline, [nandan]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 5:21 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Nandan,
>
>
>
> When the acceptance criteria fails, the update is considered malformed and
> the TAW or AFI/SAFI disable or session reset would be the error handling
> based on what the specific error is as described in sec 5.
>
>
>
> In Sec 4.2.1 we have the following text.
>
>
>
> A router that receives an SR Policy update that is not valid
>
>    according to these criteria MUST treat the update as malformed and
>
>    the SR Policy candidate path MUST NOT be passed to the SRPM.
>
>
>
> Then in the Sec 5 for error handling we specify the treatment for errors
> in the NLRI part, the Tunnel Encap Attribute (it’s existing TLVs) and then
> the new ones introduced in this document. E.g. for the TLV/sub-TLVs in the
> Tunnel Encap attribute (new and old)
>
>
>
> In case of any error detected, either
>
>    at the attribute or its TLV/sub-TLV level, the "treat-as-withdraw"
>
>    strategy of [RFC7606 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7606>] MUST be applied.
>
> I don't think this is sufficient, since the acceptance can fail even if
> the RT_TGT and NO_ADV communities aren't present. These are not part of
> Tunnel Encap Attribute nor NLRI.
>
>
>
> Hope that clarifies.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Nandan Saha <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* 20 November 2019 00:47
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Prakash Badrinarayanan <[email protected]>;
> Manoharan Sundaramoorthy <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>  Thank you for the updated version. I'm still reviewing it, but spotted
> something I wanted to quickly clarify.
>
>
>
> ver-7 of section "4.2.1. Acceptance of an SR Policy NLRI" had text
> mandating RFC7606 TAW if acceptance criteria fail. In ver-8 this has been
> removed, and I can't quite tell what text in section "5 Error Handling"
> covers this? I'm assuming we still want to do TAW if acceptance criteria
> fail.
>
> Please clarify.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nandan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:39 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This update of the draft is to get it ready for the WG to review towards
> WGLC .
>
> The following is the high level overview of the changes:
>
> 1) Introduced Error Handling section where all these aspects have been
> consolidated.
>
> 2) Added the request for IANA registry for Color Extended Community
> reserved field. Changed the process to Specification Required and added DE
> guidelines since the flags and other space is too small for FCFS.
>
> 3) Added security consideration section.
>
> 4) Add the clarification for handling of route target during propagation
> as per the request and discussions on the mailer and also clarified the
> matching with BGP Router ID part.
>
> 5) Changed the segment type naming from numbers to alphabets to align with
> upcoming update in the draft-ietf-segment-routing-policy to remove
> confusion between the segment types and the protocol code-points as
> discussed on the Spring and IDR lists recently.
>
> Besides this, there are other minor and editorial changes to prepare for
> WGLC.
>
> We are also trying to capture all the implementation reports at the wiki
> below and would request WG members to help update the same as there are
> multiple shipping implementations of this specification:
>
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy%20implementations%20
>
> Also note that the draft is on IDR agenda for presentation on Thu in
> Singapore.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: 19 November 2019 14:25
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Advertising Segment
>     Routing Policies in BGP
>         Authors         : Stefano Previdi
>                           Clarence Filsfils
>                           Ketan Talaulikar
>                           Paul Mattes
>                           Eric Rosen
>                           Dhanendra Jain
>                           Steven Lin
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt
>         Pages           : 38
>         Date            : 2019-11-18
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to
>    advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing (SR) Policy.  An SR
>    Policy is a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or more
>    segment lists.  The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple
>    candidate paths for an SR Policy.  Candidate paths may be learned via
>    a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP.
>    This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to
>    distribute SR Policy candidate paths.  New sub-TLVs for the Tunnel
>    Encapsulation Attribute are defined for signaling information about
>    these candidate paths.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr