Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 00:06 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 8433612003F; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 6Ydxuarlj6MR; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 51C3812002E; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id m26so1071774ljc.13; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:36 -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=/6k8Pl4+87YVhMCJfVehvCTTvwh8VEXxHPKHuZxLV+g=; b=ZbN8OJ0X8I0u4azFsdHXrYa9hh1+l/WMTqm1Za5sjd+kmPlKOIGoh6cLZbR5ZUDv5y IvKuSWuEPEkVqz6zhC7YptOsvbQO4hsdIUMdd1iRKSEb1+ZD5Sudb9Q9R8cyRYq8mjao 3XRWrqVotgYA96ckCIMz7/lcYRxy6vMlHgUrwoC7n0CGQt+GsnwtqV7bYuLTSozEgIJM bHmGonJbbhi2t0BhFl82Ud93LzmrZbXqs0Df68x4ALvFEluV7GrqmgEcx1TWYss/25Vk shCwz0tNdmptPbawwvYVH2SrIBKUWfPFOxPtqecCb0jJJZAErEtiu08ohikBZ9UHoanG ozJw==
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=/6k8Pl4+87YVhMCJfVehvCTTvwh8VEXxHPKHuZxLV+g=; b=k3wnNBxNf3XBpMt9r2/CYChaHHklNGIvVotyb/0cQLl03XpovP+z2vV9x/QoUjX7O9 9ngTCF40n7tY2GrTGLIqUiBnhsLVgK4q6kQxwRwWH0AHMhsioY5GP94BVjVciVQPdBL+ OwhlHhnKFQdTZhVMHAkQQhrRpwXrcGY2lBKlgb+XsHM6D/mjrV4W91T5fWn5JsU79OCu ZfHruyk4JIvipIO/8PO7z/nqD6sNrDo2v1PhJyQhcmrJVvARWMHC/oUohzef9gi2dmtu KXCIlI6+DlvSbj8FoK+Hu3ejazDKjrLCGpNh43s5j5z9JfDWDx2DptL6pxUUj//LshWa 4INg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZ5VkGnasf6z9nPgVdNS0IG+ywd+lWIMoiyClUoFxOaccUjg09 M2LNLLAiay6b+ghwVo6MHLba00Okr85ydC5ywgYYWQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynoBeC/jT0JyNWmfxfUMBvhRr1t9JPSLAtxUHV84rv9FXGMT9yH/YY3FLQb8391cxG4oZab4hqIwF5bmWLL+k=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81d0:: with SMTP id s16mr21403498ljg.166.1579737994409; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmWOYUnrzrb=M=dvHpn-huh_WFJURF0spOzX_752V0gkVg@mail.gmail.com> <04f301d5c4a0$6cd81690$468843b0$@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVsFVz42sbPRF=oJ=wH-dVrZRaMgf+Kqr6ne5SO3HC0+Q@mail.gmail.com> <068e01d5c562$ad9cf7f0$08d6e7d0$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <068e01d5c562$ad9cf7f0$08d6e7d0$@gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:06:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUN_F=eq+Cb78aN99wg318Q=w=cKNw-HkagU9rZ+QR2mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>, bess-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000fee1f7059cc36952"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/LxKYi9F6u1tl2qKtR2Q8wkQPMOA>
Subject: Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
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, 23 Jan 2020 00:06:43 -0000
Hi Stephane, I've followed your suggestions and updated the working version of the draft with adding: - explicit TLV in the format of BFD Discriminator attribute; - text to define check the proper format of the BFD Discriminator attribute and the handling in case it is malformed per RFC 7606. I greatly appreciate your feedback. Attached please find the diff to the updated working version of the draft and its copy. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > More inline, > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Sent:* mercredi 4 décembre 2019 23:22 > *To:* slitkows.ietf@gmail.com; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; bess-chairs@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > > > > Hi Stephane, > > thank you for the review and your thoughtful comments. Please find my > answers and notes in-lined under GIM>> tag. > > Attached, please find the diff and copy of the working version. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > Hi, > > > > Please find below my review of the document. > > > > Nits: > > > > > Section 3.1.1: > > As the document is standard track, could you introduce normative language > in the expected behavior description ? > > > > GIM2>> My apologies, I've pasted the same text twice. I propose to remove > "may be omitted" altogether. Hence the updated text: > > If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes and the root address > of a given tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop address in > the BGP auto-discovery route advertising the tunnel, then the use of > this > > mechanism for the tunnel will not bring any specific benefit. > > Do you see this version without any normative language as acceptable? > > > > [SLI] Looks good thanks > > > > > > > Section 3.1.2: > > As the document is standard track, could you introduce normative language > in the expected behavior description ? > > > > “This method should not be used”. Wouldn’t this be a normative statement ? > > GIM>> Would the following modification of the text be acceptable: > > OLD TEXT: > > This method should not be used when there is a fast restoration > mechanism (such as MPLS FRR [RFC4090]) in place for the link. > > NEW TEXT: > Using this method when a fast restoration mechanism (such as MPLS FRR > [RFC4090]) is in place for the link requires careful consideration > and coordination of defect detection intervals for the link and the > tunnel. In many cases, it is not practical to use both methods at > the same time. > > > > [SLI] Are we strongly disencouraging the practice ? if yes, “it is not > practical” is a bit too soft. I’m wondering if “is NOT RECOMMENDED” could > be a good wording. But it is up to you. > > GIM2>> The use of OAM in multi-layer fashion is a question I'd be > interested to discuss. But I feel that it deserves a separate document and > would prefer to leave the text as a note of caution for now. > > > > [SLI] Ok > > > > > > Section 3.1.4: > > As the document is standard track, could you introduce normative language > in the expected behavior description ? > GIM>> Updating to the normative language as follows: > > OLD TEXT: > > A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given (C-S, > C-G) if the P-tunnel (I or S, depending) for this (S, G) is leaf > triggered (PIM, mLDP), but for some reason internal to the protocol > the upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE cannot be > built. In this case, the downstream PE can immediately update its > UMH when the reachability condition changes. > > NEW TEXT: > > A PE MAY be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given (C-S, > C-G) if the P-tunnel (I-PMSI or S-PMSI) for this (S, G) is leaf- > triggered (PIM, mLDP), but for some reason internal to the protocol > the upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE cannot be > built. In this case, the downstream PE MAY immediately update its > UMH when the reachability condition changes. > > > [SLI] I understand the first “MAY” as optional feature, however the second > “MAY” is more a “SHOULD” IMO. Thoughts? > > GIM2>> Thank you for the clarification. The UMH list will certainly be > updated once the reachability of the downstream PE changes. In some > scenarios, such an update may be immediate, i.e., ASAP, but in some, it > might be better to delay it. Would you suggest adding a note about the > option to delay the update? > > > > [SLI] Could you check with Jeffrey Zhang on this point ? I’m not enough > expert here to tell what may be the best option. On my side, I just want > the text to be clear 😊 > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.1.6: > > As the document is standard track, could you introduce normative language > in the expected behavior description ? > > GIM>> Sub-sections of 3.1.6 define the use of RFC 8562 and the new > attribute. In the introduction to these sub-sections, I propose s/can/MAY/ > > > >From a wider perspective, do you foresee other use case of signaling BFD > information in BGP ? I’m just wondering if we may need something > extensible for future use or not. > > GIM>> Great question. BGP, and I'm speculating here, may be used to for > other BFD-related scenarios. I think that we may use the Flags field. > [SLI] Is it enough or should you add some optional TLVs behind the > discriminator ? (with nothing defined yet). > > GIM2>> Great idea, thank you! Please see the updated figure and the text: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BFD Mode | Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BFD Discriminator | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Reserved TLV | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > Format of the BFD Discriminator Attribute > > Where: > > BFD Mode is the one octet long field. This specification defines > the P2MP value (TBA3) Section 7.1. > > Reserved field is three octets long and the value MUST be zeroed > on transmission and ignored on receipt. > > BFD Discriminator is four octets long field. > > Reserved TLV field is four octets long. It MAY be used for future > extensions of the BFD Discriminator Attribute using Type-Length- > Value format. This specification defines that the value in > Reserved TLV field MUST be zeroed on transmission and ignored on > > receipt. > > > > [SLI] If your field is 4-bytes long, it is not extensible, I was thinking > of options encoded as TLVs. > > If there is no TLV, the attribute ends on BFD discriminator, the attribute > length should tell if there are TLVs or not. > > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BFD Mode | Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BFD Discriminator | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | optional TLVs | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Another point I have missed, you should define error handling procedures > for your attribute as per RFC7606. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-m… Greg Mirsky