Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 20:10 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF523A0BC5; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qonc3AYGgKh4; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F09C3A0BB8; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id e7so3929122ljg.10; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GvrfjC0blDJGdC2eUkQerkicGumjCSz5E4GNTcSCZEo=; b=F9TGa02Updl57cLuY5y6S5eLdU35X24YTcOqCjEiCXkqwYot/jA0ltftcV0elydiVK BkDljlLPAdE3Fkcbr3LLsfzY1RfW0djDhXUhb+b8jsLirKfAfkRXVd3vAgT1VSZJHQmx nhWNhNQUQZK6IFTwppL7jT0R14+IELR+11hUjzOhsQfme8ROMJ5e55TGqGyxXeuAPTpE ee5Jk7OPIHz/27qJyhOzwiJVjJygfCDrMqrlxY16R06wDWtwqwETf7VXdLH5PW5+JWJa xfhP4iOMqU1A+UgNF5/p4DOxEODatX0j9+ieMeD835C959f5oObk4VbcSbl7uyfvg1rm gaFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GvrfjC0blDJGdC2eUkQerkicGumjCSz5E4GNTcSCZEo=; b=uFuNK7CCypjjFePYiQfciTTlytAXAQi7Umb7mWgfA24VfmkHNza0vbL0nlvKIq/pZi N32JqqQbiBtuhdgjEg4rvuqjNYuv/Mqw/duG9mtqg6J0h6Ci/LMmEhM+HIwF7jj7obpj AydxPX17sSk8w7R5IB500tq2sWxBIec3CixviUVdlarrEdpp1jmRO1EAOtOYYRvTrWbA 228lZGL8WSE4lCPgNBvBtET9uHKfuv/lIYA4CYaaosEhtJXhSyfzvkSaHY2jYERpWMkA hJXIzaCFYSC0fdXEudUsX+Ux75emCKdnCaXFzjNBiRY2N67KK08eymPDDwMRxOAt19fS rM7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VkuHvZyKQTx8Qq9J11OxNNNBDb02F4Jq3NyuZznS7byEGzbyX PLFnBE1dDJsUss/46dNKYO1jJwtrXR1rMaghXCM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHxZxfkl4Q793AMzSGztvzsjGQx3jc17cHNc5rb5ye2x92EGz2kIpBCoH/B259KfrZfemvytBKbf7/ObuWZP4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9988:: with SMTP id w8mr480411lji.107.1611259828911; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1336556383.1214634.1608220368883.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1336556383.1214634.1608220368883@mail.yahoo.com> <CAMMESsxqkuSMkKRt-q=PagiF8dRGda-MBAvpKGRsEXWqgbaR7w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVRS3L51cqJgbsgYM8JOaBhmR+F=SabgP_54xOSGnZi3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxV36nhiXjy5bEYFuHx-CmTLHLPDDA757vuzEPpbW809A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVyOrsavvTYTF81VmM9k9Ckp+u4BgXz4Ba3+Ocm_FpXLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsx4XfBQHE1r6azr+J+WrEK+S4MuBK_hCXU4xhqBbE7mXA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW4X9PROzZWOpEDtxGyg6p+h8dL_gKLXfSTL0Ts=+RARw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESswE_9XxiM-sK0K8N7_OB59xoWOHWFhacqq1DQ6958xD3A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXZkaH-tnhZLCHDUpsDhFFZR6PeRB9qCm2vYfu9VLwiJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxEEH_4AdHguMnm8wx2fmKqhwEqO8sdh-DOaXbUa7oFLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxEEH_4AdHguMnm8wx2fmKqhwEqO8sdh-DOaXbUa7oFLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmX6Yqoz0sjVUizaQSYp+cZ9qat0anJDxR+4dwjQ2v44TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be424905b96ea9c9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/E-Cx_S74JNQ7_ES6baSzjd7jE9E>
Subject: Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:10:35 -0000
Hi Alvaro, I much appreciate your quick response and the clarifying questions. Please find my answers in-lined under GIM>> tag. I will upload the document with the additional updates from my answers. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:51 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Greg: > > Hi! > > I trust that the changes we’ve discussed are reflected in the diffs. > > About the new text below…. It looks ok to me. Just a couple of > questions: When is this new TLV considered malformed? > GIM>> I've added text to the description of the Length field: o The Length field is 4 for the IPv4 address family and 16 for the IPv6 address family. The TLV is considered malformed if the field is set to any other value. > Given that it is required for p2mp, what action should the receiver make > if it is not included? > I’m ok with the action being Attribute Discard; I just want that to be > explicit. > GIM>> You're right, making it explicit with: The BFD Discriminator attribute that does not include the Source IP Address TLV MUST be handled according to the "attribute discard" approach, as defined in [RFC7606]. > > > I’ll clear my DISCUSS when the update is posted. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On January 21, 2021 at 10:59:41 AM, Greg Mirsky (gregimirsky@gmail.com) > wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > after the discussion with our AD and Chairs, we have prepared an update > with a new Source IP Address TLV. The Source IP Address TLV is required in > the BFD Discriminator attribute is the BFD Mode is set to P2MP value. Below > is the updated text. > > - In Section 3.1.6: > > An optional Source IP Address TLV is defined in this document. The > Source IP Address TLV MUST be used when the value of the BFD Mode > field's value is P2MP BFD Session. For the Source IP Address TLV > fields are set as follows: > > o The Type field is set to 1 Section 7.3. > > o The Length field is 4 for the IPv4 address family and 16 for the > IPv6 address family. > > o The Value field contains the address associated with the > MultipointHead of the P2MP BFD session. > > The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed if its > length is smaller than 11 octets or if Optional TLVs are present, but > not well-formed. If the attribute is deemed to be malformed, the > UPDATE message SHALL be handled using the approach of Attribute > Discard per [RFC7606]. > > > - In Section 3.1.6.1 > > o MUST use the IP address included in the Source IP Address TLV of > the BFD Discriminator attribute as the source IP address when > transmitting BFD Control packets; > > > - In section 3.1.6.2 > > the IP address in the Source IP Address TLV included the BFD > Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route; > > > Also, all updates resulting from our discussion are highlighted in the > attached diff file. Please let me know if this update addresses your > comment on the origin of the PE address used in the P2MP BFD session. I > much appreciate your review, comments, and suggestions. > > Best regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:36 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On December 23, 2020 at 1:51:13 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: >> >> >> Greg: >> >> I have just one reply. I am also leaving in the text where we're >> waiting for Chair/AD input. >> >> >> Thanks!! >> >> Alvaro. >> >> >> ... >> > > > Method described in Section 3.1.2 monitors the state of the data >> > > > plane but only for an egress P-PE link of a P-tunnel. As a result, >> > > > network failures that affect upstream links might not be detected >> > > > using this method and the MVPN convergence would be determined by >> the >> > > > convergence of the BGP control plane. >> > > >> > > "...would be determined by the convergence of the BGP control plane." >> > > >> > > This is a case where it seems that combining §3.1.1/§3.1.2 would make >> > > sense. In fact, tracking the state of the root seems helpful in other >> > > cases too (below) that are looking at different things. You said >> > > before that you didn't think combining the methods make sense -- can >> > > you please explain why in this section? >> > >> > GIM3>> But that would be my personal opinion that the WG might not >> agree. >> > I'm always glad to discuss technical ideas, pros, and contras of that or >> > this approach to solve the problem but I feel uneasy adding my personal >> > opinions in the WG document. The document lists a set of techniques but >> how >> > they are combined in a product is left for product managers and >> developers >> > to decide. >> > Would you agree? >> >> The document already talks about combinations, specifically with root >> tracking. >> >> The text above already mentions "convergence of the BGP control >> plane", which I think makes direct reference to root tracking. §3.1.3 >> and §3.1.4 both say that "the downstream PE can immediately update its >> UMH when the reachability condition changes" -- this is the exact same >> text used in §3.1.1 to describe root tracking. >> >> The opinion of not combining is already not represented in the text, >> and there is direct reference to using an additional method. If you >> didn't mean to use the same text to refer to different things then >> perhaps some clarification would be in order. >> >> >> >> >> ... >> > > > > > > (2b) ... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > BTW, I agree with Jeff in > that bfd/idr should be given the >> opportunity >> > > > > to review this document. >> > > > >> > > > GIM2>> I'm leaving this decision to the AD and Chairs of BESS and >> BFD WGs. >> > > >> > > Yup. >> >> ... >> > > > > > > (18) §3.1.6.2(http://3.1.6.2): If the IP address doesn't map >> > > > > > > correctly at the downstream PE (for example, a different local >> > > > > > > address is used that doesn't correspond to the information in >> the >> > > > > > > PMSI attribute), what action should it take? Can the tunnel >> still >> > > > > > > be monitored? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > GIM>> There's a possibility that the same downstream PE is >> monitoring >> > > > > > more than one P-tunnel. Since each Upstream PE assigns its own >> BFD >> > > > > > Discriminator, there's a chance that the same value is picked >> by more >> > > > > > than one Upstream PE. >> > > > > > According to Section 5.7 of the RFC 8562: >> > > > > > IP and MPLS multipoint tails MUST demultiplex BFD packets based >> on a >> > > > > > combination of the source address, My Discriminator, and the >> identity >> > > > > > of the multipoint path that the multipoint BFD Control packet >> was >> > > > > > received from. Together they uniquely identify the head of the >> > > > > > multipoint path. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We may consider adding the source address in the BFD >> Discriminator >> > > > > > attribute as an optional TLV. I think that might be a good >> extension >> > > > > > that can be introduced in a new document. >> > > > > >> > > > > Why wait for a new document? You made a pretty good case for >> > > > > signaling the source address. >> > > > >> > > > GIM2>> I'd like to defer this question to our AD and BESS WG Chairs. >> > > >> > > Again, you made a good case for why it is needed for the mechanism to >> > > work. Leaving it for later might just leave a hole. Sure, let's hear >> > > from the Chairs/AD. >> >
- [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Reshad Rahman
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky