Hi all,
My colleagues and I have a question pertaining to Section 3.2 of RFC
8402<https://eci365.sharepoint.com/sites/technicaldocsite/genericdev/System/System%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?FolderCTID=0x012000858C3D81A4889F449868AC62A2AABDCD&id=%2Fsites%2Ftechnicaldocsite%2Fgenericdev%2FSystem%2FSystem%20Documents%2FIP%2DMPLS%2FNE%20Management%2FCLI>.
This section says:
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 requirement itself is well understood. However, neither RFC 8402 nor any
other SPRING document I have seen defines the expected behavior of SR-capable
nodes if, due to misconfiguration, a certain prefix that is owned by multiple
nodes in the SR domain is associated with the Node-SID in at least one of them.
There are several sub-scenarios of the misconfiguration problem above, e.g..:
* The prefix is owned by multiple nodes. One of these nodes advertises
it as associated with the Node-SID, while the other owners do not associate it
with any SID at all
* The prefix is owned by multiple nodes. One of these nodes advertises
it as associated with the Node-SID, while one (or more) of the other nodes
advertise it as associated with an IGP-Prefix SID but not as a Node-SID
* The prefix is owned by multiple nodes, and two (or more) of these
nodes advertise it as associated with the Node-SID but with different indices
in the SRGB
* The prefix is owned by multiple nodes, and two (or more) of these
nodes advertise it as associated with the Node-SID with the same index in the
SRGB.
Our experiments (admittedly incomplete) with SR-capable equipment from
different vendors have shown that:
* None of the tested devices have reported this situation as an error
when they encounter some of the problematic scenarios
* Different devices have demonstrated different forwarding behavior
when they encounter some of the problematic scenarios. In some of these
scenarios the offending prefix would be associated with some SID and the
resulting forwarding behavior installed.
We think that it would be nice if the WG could define a minimal set of
requirements for handling this kind of misconfiguration. These requirements
should include at least the following:
* A device that encounters this kind of misconfiguration SHOULD report
the problem to the network management layer
* The prefix for which this kind of misconfiguration has been detected
SHOULD NOT be associated with any IGP Prefix-SID at all.
There may be other possibilities, but we feel that RFC 8402 is underspecified
in this regard,
We would highly appreciate your feedback.
Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha (on behalf of the team).
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
