Ketan,
Much Thanks for taking a stab at addressing the composite candidate path
use-case! We seem to be converging. However, I don’t understand why you
need to use additional SR policies (and unnecessarily burn additional
colors) to address this. Why can’t the composite candidate path just be a
grouping of explicit candidate paths and/or dynamic candidate paths?
Consider the following changes:
** Section 2.2
OLD:
A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping of SR
Policies. The composite candidate path construct enables combination
of SR Policies, each with explicit candidate paths and/or dynamic
candidate paths with potentially different optimization objectives
and constraints, for a load-balanced steering of packet flows over
its constituent SR Policies. The following criteria apply for
inclusion of constituent SR Policies using a composite candidate path
under a parent SR Policy:
o the endpoints of the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR
Policy MUST be identical
o The colors of each of the constituent SR Policies and the parent
SR Policy MUST be different
o the constituent SR Policies MUST NOT use composite candidate paths
Each constituent SR Policy of a composite candidate path is
associated with a weight for load-balancing purposes (refer
Section 2.11
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09#section-2.11>
for details). The default weight is 1.
NEW:
A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping of
explicit candidate paths and/or dynamic candidate paths with
potentially different optimization objectives and constraints.
The composite candidate path construct enables load-balanced
steering of packet-flows over a set of constituent candidate
paths. The following criteria apply for constituent candidate
paths under a composite candidate path:
o the preference of the constituent candidate path MUST be
ignored.
o the constituent candidate path MUST NOT be a composite candidate
path
Each constituent candidate path of a composite candidate path is
associated with a weight for load-balancing purposes (refer
Section 2.11
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09#section-2.11>
for details). The default weight is 1.
**
** Section 2.11
OLD:
When a composite candidate path is active, the fraction of flows
steered into each constituent SR Policy is equal to the relative
weight of each constituent SR Policy. Further load balancing of
flows steered into a constituent SR Policy is performed based on the
weights of the Segment-List of the active candidate path of that
constituent SR Policy.
NEW:
When a composite candidate path is active, the fraction of flows
steered into each constituent candidate path is equal to the relative
weight of each constituent candidate path. Further load balancing of
flows steered into a constituent candidate path is performed based on
the weights of each associated Segment-List.
**
** Section 2.13
OLD:
The information model of SR Policy POL100 having a composite
candidate path is the following:
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
Preference 200
Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1>
Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2>
The constituent SR Policies POL1 and POL2 have information model as
described at the start of this section. They are referenced only by
color in the composite candidate path since their headend and
endpoint are identical to the POL100. The valid Segment-Lists of the
active candidate path of POL1 and POL2 are installed in the
forwarding. Traffic steered on POL100 is flow-based hashed on POL1
with a ratio W1/(W1+W2). Within the POL1, the flow-based hashing
over its Segment-Lists are performed as described earlier in this
section.
NEW:
The information model of SR Policy POL100 having a composite
candidate path is the following:
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
Candidate-path Comp-CP <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
Preference 200
Weight W1, Candidate-path CP1
Weight W2, Candidate-path CP2
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 2>
Weight W11, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
Weight W12, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 3>
Weight W21, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
Weight W22, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>
Comp-CP is a composite candidate path with two constituents, CP1
and CP2. The preference is ignored for each of the two constituent
candidate paths. The valid Segment-Lists of the two constituent
candidate paths are installed in the forwarding. Traffic steered
on Comp-CP is flow-based hashed on to CP1 and CP2 with a ratio of
W1/(W1+W2) and W2/(W1+W2) respectively. Within each constituent
candidate path, the flow-based hashing over its Segment-Lists are
performed as described earlier in this section.
**
** Section 5.3
OLD:
A composite candidate path is specified as a group of its constituent
SR Policies.
A composite candidate path is valid when it has at least one valid
constituent SR Policy.
NEW:
A composite candidate path is specified as a group of its constituent
candidate paths.
A composite candidate path is valid when it has at least one valid
constituent candidate path.
**
Regards,
-Pavan
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 7:02 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=
40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We have just posted an update for the draft and following is the summary
> of changes:
>
> 1) Introduction of the Composite Candidate Path construct to address a
> pending comment from the WG (Ref :
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fEqE5TOwdh2vEyFm_MEjiXyP2ws/
> and
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/d9oSSbgp0jCExRx0SXyBY0CyqXU/)
> 2) Based on offline feedback received, updated SRv6 segment types to
> include optional SRv6 SID and behavior instead of the new type that was
> introduced for it in the v08.
> 3) Clarification of handling of colors and BGP multi-path scenarios based
> on offline feedback received.
> 4) Clarification on considerations for TI-LFA for SR Policy as discussed
> in the WG (Ref :
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/EV1ytUsd5ZgkMHDN0IvFhw9id40/)
>
> Please let know your comments/feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: 02 November 2020 06:27
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of
> the IETF.
>
> Title : Segment Routing Policy Architecture
> Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Ketan Talaulikar
> Daniel Voyer
> Alex Bogdanov
> Paul Mattes
> Filename : draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt
> Pages : 37
> Date : 2020-11-01
>
> Abstract:
> Segment Routing (SR) allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
> along any path. Intermediate per-flow states are eliminated thanks
> to source routing. The headend node steers a flow into an SR Policy.
> The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented with an
> ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy. This
> document details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR
> Policy.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
