Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 02:39 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 4333B130EBB; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:39:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ATIEAyVAe6Dt; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (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 D5E2A130DE4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id n15so3386431lfe.5; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:49 -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=fX4u8uAq7PG1Q/YAOkiUeAN5nvsSqARCHrAaNO+6N4I=; b=VtGi1fqmV/CwdKOaD7dCEBXa0VR7ALgALJ7iDWq3vY2prMNTFo5fnQU8p7sYmbZxYw PiJ7rxHZzJzsxtg+URR9Nbqd0xilLxJ/a8U1ZsrHZE7Dm29wMOQCZKjVDabD8wkNxYn+ N8jedvJMjZOGzZ/Zbcm0oRxKT5x76RhRANWJZ4v4qrudLUl7ijUwzjRrHCRZcEDIPN0K dB2307v8DdjC0aBWEfMr6mjhD2zVdvsEeOhF8qweefxHmgo80vqUv6ESx/dsgkROo9LA ZTPJzYmr4PrPurvD4Qi4eZAlIiQzxsay7rosfT50GOwML13I8uBo49uKCbrzdIIWiDss kjMw==
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=fX4u8uAq7PG1Q/YAOkiUeAN5nvsSqARCHrAaNO+6N4I=; b=uj0sXys1uJff1psZj/RmNVs0oRMh+hRWhNtAmFYBunuJ2sHhZt+8QoLVmOKH96C99e bNBsCNwApEqqSKWn4093bGRakE9OlEb0lMXiGfdWuqR2JigjhEVlsPgq/9EzhYsjRXvS CYNKhP+BjYB9TEm1NmN5uUyXuIflHVC4lQZsL6eu/QaOG7tdKU6e9ot3qgzK+YMZgBO/ yfCBEhVp1Zp6hemS5TgYs7uYNbWweorMwnabsDdIShjRUpuUOxUn0NR5+a9wBVfaDnRU 2avWTBXom1LU9DhyhYGjth9knJqOLJR1LrXKGaEJ07Mj/LkWWYslnYwdMm3H0hnWR8jP o8Xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubGKv9prCJ97bo/mIJMueEppJZFNI9/2V9r0E6jwo0b6si1hnXf M6CF/pL7GisRU6o1m990iOk+UJ3gZEhN6kSdFzw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY+TF9c3YALr6AhUk/1dO8UJ5wtmtBzrpWTStFfCoEHZd8q8DXBd9KxOYDmorkERq16lYNRjyPvmS3vQ3Vfxh8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:260e:: with SMTP id m14mr781773lfm.158.1550111927454; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmX6RgJ95ptcexEzH8R0ns8xxUhMgL2aAK8xgewcw0-z3w@mail.gmail.com> <201902121544240415726@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201902121544240415726@zte.com.cn>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWeDKVDer+CUJdhnC2Rr3j+SgBNEbiSAmP-TUreD_zW5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Cc: zzhang@juniper.net, bess-chairs@ietf.org, Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Robert Kebler <rkebler@juniper.net>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc51770581d18ed7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/PjghpvKSh-I8inBZLOPC62fCu9A>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 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, 14 Feb 2019 02:39:12 -0000
Hi Sandy, thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates. I've logged my answers under GIM3>> tag. Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:44 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Thank you for your good modification and clarification! > About two sections I still have some comments, I copy the contents here > because the mail is too long: > 1, > 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI > tunnel's state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other > decision. > GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may use a > combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy) to > control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think > that the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel > reception state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you > think? > 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the > BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used > as a supplement for BFD session? > GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy, > that may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session. > Sandy2> Since BFD packet is forwarding through by x-PMSI tunnel, egress PE > can get the tunnel states by BFD detection timer expiration. So > administrator may choose different policies to control the session state, > but the bfd packets detection should be the base. IMO section 3.1.1~4 are > optional. > GIM3>> I re-read the 3.1 and I think now better understand the original idea. All methods listed in sub-sections, including the one that describes use of p2mp BFD, are alternatives, options to detect a failure in the tunnel. Would the following update be helpful: OLD TEXT: The procedure proposed here also allows that all downstream PEs don't apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that may be different for different downstream PEs. NEW TEXT: The optional procedures proposed in this section also allow that all downstream PEs don't apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that may be different for different downstream PEs. For section 3.1.5 counter information, how do the configurable timer work > with the bfd detection timer? What should egress PE do with the expiration > of the two timers when they are both used? > GIM3>> MPLS FRR is mentioned in the draft as an example of the "fast restoration mechanism". Likely, FRR will be enabled by single-hop p2p BFD per protected link. If that's the case, for the scenario described in this sub-section, p2mp BFD is unnecessary. > > 2. > For section 3.1.7.1, the last sentence. > GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be > sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I > interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the > disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already > exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator > and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the > right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe > optional procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the > egress PE switches to the new p2mp BFD session. > Sandy2>If the "old" BFD discriminator can be reused in the new > advertisement when the switchover is happened on a same upstream PE? If the > "old" discriminator can be reused, it seems like it isn't necessary to > build a new BFD session. But if a new BFD discriminator MUST be generated, > then the new add sentence looks good to me. > GIM3>> Would the following update to the last paragraph address your concern: OLD TEXT: If the route to the src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE- CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that value of the BFD Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link. NEW TEXT: If the route to the src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE- CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that the previously advertised value of the BFD Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link. > > Thanks, > Sandy > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > 发件人:GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > 收件人:张征00007940; > 抄送人:zzhang@juniper.net <zzhang@juniper.net>;bess-chairs@ietf.org < > bess-chairs@ietf.org>;Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com>;Robert > Kebler <rkebler@juniper.net>;BESS <bess@ietf.org>; > 日 期 :2019年02月07日 08:16 > 主 题 :Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > Hi Sandy,much appreciate your comments. Please find my answers below > tagged GIM2>>. > Attached, please find the updated working version and the diff to the last > published version. > > Kind regards, > Greg > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:40 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Greg, Jeffrey, co-authors, > > About the questions provided by Jeffrey, I have some concerns, please see > below with Sandy>. > And I have some other questions: > 1. According to "draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-19" and the function defined in > this draft, IMO the BFD session should be demultiplexed by the combination > of upstream peer address, the discriminator and the X-PMSI which is used > for flow forwarding. IMO these content should be written in the draft > clearly. > GIM2>> Agreed and to clarify I propose the following update to the > Downstream PE Procedures: > OLD TEXT: > On receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the > Downstream PE: > > o MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the > P-tunnel originating from the Root PE; > > o MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType = > MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]; > > o MUST use the source IP address of a BFD control packet, the value > of BFD Discriminator from the BGP-BFD Attribute to properly > demultiplex BFD sessions; > > NEW TEXT: > Upon receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the > Downstream PE: > > o MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the > P-tunnel originating from the Root PE and the IP address of the > Upstream PE; > > o MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType = > MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]; > > o MUST use the source IP address of the BFD control packet, the > value of the BFD Discriminator field, and the x-PMSI tunnel > identifier the BFD control packet was received to properly > demultiplex BFD sessions. > > 2. The P2MP BFD packet should be delivered in the X-PMSI tunnel. The BFD > multicast packet MUST be encapsulated in associated tunnel. It seems like > there is no specifiction for it. > GIM2>> Agree and to clarify I propose the following text to be added to > the Upstream PE Procedures section: > NEW TEXT: > o MUST periodically transmit BFD control packets over the x-PMSI > tunnel. > 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI > tunnel's state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other > decision. > GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may use a > combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy) to > control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think > that the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel > reception state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you > think? > 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the > BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used > as a supplement for BFD session? > GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy, > that may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session. > > Thanks, > Sandy > 原始邮件 > 发件人:GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > 收件人:zzhang@juniper.net <zzhang@juniper.net>; > 抄送人:bess-chairs@ietf.org <bess-chairs@ietf.org>;Thomas Morin < > thomas.morin@orange.com>;Robert Kebler <rkebler@juniper.net>;BESS < > bess@ietf.org>; > 日 期 :2018年12月06日 02:38 > 主 题 :Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > Hi Jeffrey,thank you for the review, detailed questions and helpful > comments. Please find my notes, answers in-line tagged GIM>>. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:14 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < > zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: > Hi, > I have the following questions/comments: > The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that consists > of having a downstream PE take into account the status of P-tunnels > rooted at each possible upstream PEs, for including or not including > each given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S,C-G) > state. The result is that, if a P-tunnel is "down" (see > Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not be > considered for UMH selection, which will result in the downstream PE > to failover to the upstream PE which is next in the list of > candidates. > Is it possible that a p2mp tunnel is considered up by some leaves but > down by some other leaves, leaving to them choosing different UMH? In that > case, procedures described in Section 9.1.1 ("Discarding Packets from Wrong > PE") of RFC 6513 must be used. I see that this is actually pointed out > later in section 6 – good to have a pointer to it right here. > GIM>> Would the following new text that follows the quoted text address > your concern: > NEW TEXT: > If rules to determine the state of the P-tunnel are not > consistent across all PEs, then some may arrive at a different > conclusion regarding the state of the tunnel, In such a scenario, > procedures described in Section 9.1.1 of [RFC 6513] MUST be used. > Sandy> I think Jeffrey means that a egress PE may choose a new UMH after > the the "old" UMH fails. Then the egress PE may also receive (C-S, C-G) > flows from old UMH p-tunnel, these flows MUST be discarded according to > section 9.1.1 of RFC6513. > GIM2>> I think that the proposed text may address the comment. I'm,as > always, open to suggestions on how to modify, refine the proposed new text. > Additionally, the text in section 3 seems to be more biased on Single > Forwarder Election choosing the UMH with the highest IP address. Section 5 > of RFC6513 also describes two other options, hashing or based on “installed > UMH route” (aka unicast-based). It is not clear how the text in this > document applies to hashing based selection, and I don’t see how the text > applies to unicast-based selection. Some rewording/clarification are needed > here. > GIM>> How would the use of an alternative UMH selection algorithm change > documented use of p2mp BFD? Do you think that if the Upstream PE selected > using, for example, hashing then defined use of BGP-BFD and p2mp BFD itself > no longer applicable? > Sandy> Diffrent UMH selection methods don't influent p2mp BFD documented > in this draft. IMO both of section 3 and section 5 need to be mentioned > here in order to avoid confusion. > GIM2>> Very helpful clarification, thank you. Please consider the > following update to section 4: > OLD TEXT: > The procedures > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE > selection, as specified in [RFC6513]. > NEW TEXT: > The procedures > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE > selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based > on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3 > [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route. > For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is > considered up if one or more of the P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs, identified by > the P-tunnel Attribute, are in Up state. > Why is “one or more of …” used in the above text? > GIM>> Would s/one or more of/at least one of/ address your concern? > Sandy> I am not sure there are the situations that two or more LSPs are > used to deliver a same (C-S, C-G). IMO only the LSP used by forwarding need > to be mointor in egress PE. > GIM>> I need to defer this to Thomas and Rob. If you agree with Sandy, > should we just remove the sentence? > There are several occurrences of ((S, G)). I assume they should be > changed to (C-S, C-G). > GIM>> Indeed, globally replaced s/((S,G))/(C-S,C-G)/ > A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given ((S, G)) > if the P-tunnel for this (S, G) (I or S , depending) is leaf > triggered (PIM, mLDP) > Perhaps either remove the (I or S , depending)or move it to before the > “for”. > GIM>> Moved before the "for". > This document defines the format and ways of usingr a new BGP > attribute called the "BGP- BFD attribute". > s/usingr/using/ > GIM>> Yes, great catch. > o MUST use [Ed.note] address as destination IP address when > transmitting BFD control packets; > [Ed.note]? > GIM>> Replaced [Ed...note] to make it as follows: > o MUST use address in 127.0.0.0/8 range for IPv4 or in > 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 as destination IP address > when transmitting BFD control packets; > If tracking of the P-tunnel by using a p2mp BFD session is to be > enabled after the P-tunnel has been already signaled, the the > procedure described above MUST be followed. > What if the tracking is to be enabled before the P-tunnel has been > signaled? The text implies different behavior? > GIM>> Not really, I guess. I think that the second sentence is important: > Note that x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with exactly the same > attributes as before and > the BGP-BFD Attribute included. > s/the the/then the/ > GIM>> Done. > … The dedicated p2mp BFD session MAY monitor the state of > the Standby Upstream PE. > What does the above text mean? Do you mean “A different p2mp BFD session > …”? > GIM>> Yes, thank you for the suggested re-wording. Applied s/The > dedicated/A different/ > When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration > mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, leaf PEs should be configured > to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel restoration > mechanism happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided for this > purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable default value > for this timer. > What does “such a procedure” refers to? > GIM>> Would s/When such a procedure is used/In such a scenario/ > s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/? > GIM>> Great catch, thank you. Done. > 3.1.7. Per PE-CE link BFD Discriminator > The following approach is defined for the fast failover in response > to the detection of PE-CE link failures, in which UMH selection for a > given C-multicast route takes into account the state of the BFD > session associated with the state of the upstream PE-CE link. > 3.1.7.1. Upstream PE Procedures > For each protected PE-CE link, the upstream PE initiates a multipoint > BFD session [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] as MultipointHead toward > downstream PEs. A downstream PE monitors the state of the p2mp > session as MultipointTail and MAY interpret transition of the BFD > session into Down state as the indication of the associated PE-CE > link being down. > Since the BFD packets are sent over the P2MP tunnel not the PE-CE link, > my understanding is that the BFD discriminator is still for the tunnel and > not tied to the PE-CE link; but different from the previous case, the root > will stop sending BFD messages when it detects the PE-CE link failure. As > far as the egress PEs are concerned, they don’t know if it is the tunnel > failure or PE-CE link failure. > If my understanding is correct, the wording should be changed. > GIM>> There are other than stopping transmission of BFD control packets > ways to distinguish two conditions for the egress PE. For example, the > MultipointHead MAY set the State to AdminDown and continue sending BFD > control packets. If and when PE-CE link restored to Up, the MultipointHead > can set the state to Up in the BFD control packet. > Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. The BFD detection should be mapping to > specific flow/flows associated with X-PMSIs, not the PE-CE link. The PE-CE > link should influence the X-PMSIs and associated (C-S, C-G) flows. The > AdminDown function defined in BFD works normally. > GIM2>> The described behavior of the egress PE is optional and can be > controlled by the local policy. > … If the route to the > src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE- > CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route > with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that value of the BFD > Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link. > If the RPF interface changes on the upstream PE, why should it update the > route to send a new discriminator? As long as there is a new RPF interface > couldn’t the upstream PE do nothing but start tracking the new RPF > interface? > GIM>> I'll defer this one to Thomas and Rob. > Sandy> I have the same question with Jeffrey. If RPF interface changes on > the upstream PE, and a new route generated with a new BFD discriminator, a > new P2MP BFD session need to be established and the network stability will > be influenced. We need a function to guarantee the existed BFD session > should not be influenced. > GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be > sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I > interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the > disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already > exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator > and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the > right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe > optional procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the > egress PE switches to the new p2mp BFD session. > Regardless which way (the currently described way and my imagined way), > some text should be added to discuss how the downstream would not switch to > another upstream PE when the primary PE is just going through a RPF change. > GIM>> Would appending the following text be acceptable to address your > concern: > NEW TEXT: > To avoid unwarranted switchover a downstream PE MUST gracefully handle the > updated S-PMSI A-D route and switch to the use of the associated BFD > Discriminator value. > 4. Standby C-multicast route > The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site > that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs. The procedures > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE > selection, as specified in [RFC6513]. > Why would it not work with more than two upstream PEs? > Why is it limited to single forwarder selection? What about unicast based > selection? > GIM>> Again, asking for Thomas and Rob to help. > Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. There is no limition for advertising same > flows through more than two PEs. Maybe the text should be modify to the UMH > and the next best UMH. > GIM2>> Thank you for the suggestion. Jeffrey and Sandy, would the > following update address your concerns: > OLD TEXT: > The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site > that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs. The procedures > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE > selection, as specified in [RFC6513]. > NEW TEXT: > The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site > that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs though, to simplify > the description, the case of dual-homing is described. The > procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the UMH > selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based > on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3 > [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route. > This route, that has the semantics of being a 'standby' > C-multicast route, is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast > route", and is constructed as follows: > o the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except > that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built > using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated > to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S) > Since you mention RD, you might as well mention it carries a Route Target > derived from the standby RE’s UMH route’s VRF RT Import EC. > GIM>> Woud the following be acceptable: > NEW TEXT: > o the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except > that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built > using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated > to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S and a > Route Target derived from the standby PE's UMH route's VRF RT > Import EC) > If at some later point the local PE determines that C-S is no longer > reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE > becomes the Upstream PE, and the local PE re-sends the C-multicast > route with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that > now the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which > results in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only > difference between these routes being the presence/absence of the > Standby PE BGP Community). > Additionally the LOCAL_PREF should also change? > GIM>> Like normative SHOULD? > 4.3. Reachability determination > The standby PE can use the following information to determine that > C-S can or cannot be reached through the primary PE: > Shouldn’t this be 4.2.1 instead of 4.3? > GIM>> Yes, agree. Thank you. > 5. Hot leaf standby > The mechanisms defined in sections Section 4 and Section 3 can be > used together as follows. > This section is a little confusing to me. It seems that it really should > be how a leaf should behave when hot root standby is used, not that there > is a “hot leaf” mode. A leaf is just a leaf, not a > cold/warm/hot/primary/standby leaf. > GIM>> Would re-naming the section to "Use of Standby C-multicast Route" > better reflect the content of the section? > Thanks. > Jeffrey > From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of > stephane.litkowski@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 2:54 AM > To: bess@ietf.org > Cc: bess-chairs@ietf.org > Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > > Hello Working Group, > This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-04 [1] > > This poll runs until *the 6th of December*. > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from > all the Authors and Contributors. > > Currently two IPRs have been disclosed against this Document. > > If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. > Thank you, > Stephane & Matthew > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ > > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you.
- [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draf… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Robert Kebler
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang