Re: [bess] Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt

Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2019 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 8EE99130EC2; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:35:55 -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 441VHocLB9vF; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 68E23130EC1; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id n2so2680017pgm.3; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:35:52 -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=NTCMQaspUPddwn8OJ+R9qWbm9F3sjBt8u6lsDc69xdE=; b=qdUMbkHvE9CPuaexkUsbyvffKeQZdZQE3ikMOn2bJT1wCNTxqLZFtZXkGjbZgviXnI 8g9YkU2Iqv0S3z84N7FuMUBDDbedgJ9pHo2riv5TitEwv2dA95PuGO8hyZJUDeCF2LZP IllBiPgq2WZCvTTfUFp8V7Lv8cvAgbIkkgVY5p+UOkdYF4GUg2VkXvoJIp3V5oGcWORE SP+2OPCtRC5Z/2UCuNyqYW7gkx71ko1eK5yKVC8pdSafvh9YFscJWx5uxVeia/VVU3+q ulHPk8fSGH4BHlgSJKngXP+dvGg12wEKZi6yCQLWb1tXaQpJmgE3fFZVJTO3gGyLXety dQCQ==
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=NTCMQaspUPddwn8OJ+R9qWbm9F3sjBt8u6lsDc69xdE=; b=VUZPcel6djoPvGiLyzLpL0OtRnRhfM1izXcLdQ9HH16UsRSvnw4GkkunEJIoCIYxcW +OATVWuMbV+6nGmJlInuucmaQ0bMSFVTjd+jS1wY3Ca/g5Pn+9h4MupJCb8IoRtNqyN8 GAJCfJuhy+ogh3SSFPBdHg4++H4EN2ajjTvx1dZCKMFpkaaAdR883qfASlhmK6cpy1LN XwZxOMvsZt1PhEI4DMyQOs17ISETEr17aeGgfiu90nrcziZbRauyZ6kWxKWe4sF+fZT5 BJMQYUrremKe3yDx/guyDpFFkVkKJgEIelXIHAViowUYFTKJB9is4Xu7O/51U/yijt5T 7pwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUuke81YYb69qlyQkL5ljv1CZ/JM9iG6U96880d+wkt8fH94GOoOQ1 JS7Yl8hYcxkZcv4iH4tKn4UyC6VZ0BaUYZ4BPTg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7M6kcsYtG93avPHXPuMIiKQxcnkFW1stvjSIpLUxroVgWBiKwQw9GO53r3xk1tdigLdyTE1rFkl3tyg/2//Ho=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:db41:: with SMTP id f62mr6622900pfg.123.1548336951262; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:35:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7E5219@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CO2PR05MB24559F8A4B995C75BAF0BAB6D4850@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7FA1ED@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CO2PR05MB2455DFED5006162C8D906D79D4990@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7FC5AA@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CO2PR05MB2455BFD00AF3B7BA0D51EAD0D49A0@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR05MB2455BFD00AF3B7BA0D51EAD0D49A0@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:35:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkHeD9q-6cgK6m5QOQA5PKr=zmu8VzAMDyu82cx61gO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Cc: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f902c4058034497f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/qLlqZTF3A9mWWOTEbctbTVkTIhA>
Subject: Re: [bess] Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
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, 24 Jan 2019 13:35:56 -0000

Hi Jeffrey,

Isn't this just a matter of how you would be implementing "tunneling" ?

For vast majority of decapsulations there is no state as such, but it is
just part of one of normal switching vectors in the router.

Best,
R.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 21:40 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net
wrote:

> The receiver PE cannot keep its state to receive on both tunnels forever.
> After some time, it has to leave the old tunnel.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xiejingrong [mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 9:09 PM
> > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>;
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-
> > track@ietf.org
> > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: [bess] I-D
> > Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> >
> > Hi Jeffrey,
> >
> > Thanks for the explaination.
> > I have the same understanding "the text in RFC6625 is really/mainly about
> > which tunnel to send/receive on in a steady state."
> > What confusing me is the "which tunnel to receive" decision, obviously on
> > receiver site PE.
> >
> > In my opinion, the receiver site PE should not do the decision, but be
> prepared
> > to *any possible tunnel* that will be used by the sender site PE for a
> specific
> > (S,G) flow.
> > Even in a steady state the sender site PE are using the (S,G)
> PMSI-tunnel for a
> > (S,G) flow, the preparation on the (*,*)PMSI-tunnel should be kept on the
> > receiver site PE.
> >
> > Below is the errata report I have raised, and I hope it can be clarified.
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> > 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5605&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK
> > -
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > m=uchRmclZ5z8wB9eN53Kr24c9zLtM9RBRe8OnA3FK1fM&s=cbCycqc2jZy8SjT
> > LHS4AEL_UhljIoaGGWAnycB0VvrY&e=
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 12:32 AM
> > To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-
> > track@ietf.org
> > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: [bess] I-D
> > Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> >
> > Hi Jingrong,
> >
> > You're right that to avoid disruption and duplication a switchover delay
> is
> > needed on the source PE and desired on the receiver PE, and that means
> the
> > forwarding state needs to accommodate that.
> >
> > However, the text is in RFC6625 is really/mainly about which tunnel to
> > send/receive on in a steady state. That's not explicitly spelled out,
> but that's
> > the intention per my understanding.
> >
> > To be more accurate, the text is about which PMSI route to match. In
> theory a
> > PMSI can be instantiated with one particular tunnel at one time and then
> > switch to another tunnel. In that case the PMSI route is updated with a
> > different PTA - the match to sending/receiving does not change yet the
> > switchover delay referred to RFC6513 still applies.
> >
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xiejingrong [mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:47 PM
> > > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>;
> > > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl- track@ietf.org
> > > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: [bess]
> > > I-D
> > > Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> > >
> > > Hi Jeffrey,
> > >
> > > The sender PE need to work on (*,*) tunnel for a while (switch-over
> > > timer) and then switch to the (S,G) tunnel.
> > >
> > > To quote RFC6513 section 7.1.1
> > >    The decision to bind a particular C-flow (designated as (C-S,C-G))
> to
> > >    a particular P-tunnel, or to switch a particular C-flow to a
> > >    particular P-tunnel, is always made by the PE that is to transmit
> the
> > >    C-flow onto the P-tunnel.
> > >
> > >    When a C-flow is switched from one P-tunnel to another, the purpose
> > >    of running a switch-over timer is to minimize packet loss without
> > >    introducing packet duplication.
> > >
> > > Jingrong
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 3:29 AM
> > > To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-
> > > track@ietf.org
> > > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: [bess]
> > > I-D
> > > Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> > >
> > > Jingrong,
> > >
> > > > It is determined by the sender site PE whether to steer the flow of
> > > > (C-S, C-G)
> > > into (*,*) PMSI-tunnel or (S,G)PMSI-tunnel, and the receiver site PE
> > > should work correctly in any case.
> > >
> > > Why would the sender PE send into (*, *) when there is a match for
> (S,G)?
> > >
> > > Jeffrey
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Xiejingrong [mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 11:10 PM
> > > > To: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track@ietf.org
> > > > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: [bess] I-D
> > Action:
> > > > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have a question regarding RFC6625 and this draft, since this draft
> > > > is based on the RFC6625.
> > > >
> > > > In RFC6625 section "3.2.1 Finding the match for (C-S,C-G) for Data
> > > > Reception":
> > > > It defined the rules for Finding the matched S-PMSI A-D route for a
> > > > (C-S,C-G) state on a receiver site PE.
> > > > It seems to me that, the receiver site PE will respond only to the
> > > > *ONE* 'Match for Reception' S-PMSI A-D route, and setup the
> > > > 'reception state' only for the 'Matched' S-PMSI A-D route.
> > > > But it is not true for an inclusive-selective relation between
> > > > S-PMSI A-D (*,*) and S-PMSI A-D(S,G).
> > > > Thinking the S-PMSI A-D (*,*) as an Inclusive one, the receiver site
> > > > PE with a
> > > > (C-S,C-G) state should keep its join state on both the S-PMSI A-D
> > > > (*,*) and S- PMSI A-D(S,G), and setup the 'reception state' on both
> > > > the (*,*) PMSI-tunnel and (S,G) PMSI-tunnel.
> > > > It is determined by the sender site PE whether to steer the flow of
> > > > (C-S, C-G) into (*,*) PMSI-tunnel or (S,G)PMSI-tunnel, and the
> > > > receiver site PE should work correctly in any case.
> > > >
> > > > My question:
> > > > Is the section 3.2.1 or RFC6625 wrong and should the 'Match for
> > Reception'
> > > > include *one or many* S-PMSI A-D routes ?
> > > > Is it a problem that can affect this draft ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Jingrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> > > > drafts@ietf.org
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 12:27 AM
> > > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > > > Cc: bess@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> > > > This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
> > > >
> > > >         Title           : Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in
> Multicast VPN
> > > >         Authors         : Andrew Dolganow
> > > >                           Jayant Kotalwar
> > > >                           Eric C. Rosen
> > > >                           Zhaohui Zhang
> > > >   Filename        : draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt
> > > >   Pages           : 21
> > > >   Date            : 2018-11-28
> > > >
> > > > Abstract:
> > > >    The Multicast VPN (MVPN) specifications provide procedures to
> allow a
> > > >    multicast ingress node to invoke "explicit tracking" for a
> multicast
> > > >    flow or set of flows, thus learning the egress nodes for that
> flow or
> > > >    set of flows.  However, the specifications are not completely
> clear
> > > >    about how the explicit tracking procedures work in certain
> scenarios.
> > > >    This document provides the necessary clarifications.  It also
> > > >    specifies a new, optimized explicit tracking procedure.  This new
> > > >    procedure allows an ingress node, by sending a single message, to
> > > >    request explicit tracking of each of a set of flows, where the
> set of
> > > >    flows is specified using a wildcard mechanism.  This document
> updates
> > > >    RFCs 6514, 6625, 7524, 7582, and 7900.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dexpl-
> > > > 2Dtrack_&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=sbKFeLnAFP-
> > > > zpT69P-oClnR4lbitbdaZYjOsDepCjxo&e=
> > > >
> > > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dexpl-2Dtrack-
> > > > 2D13&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=jlPz-
> > > > JVPIMj9q4cOW40qKs29IevDOPENoKn-oBQ3hK0&e=
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dexpl-
> > > > 2Dtrack-2D13&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > >
> > >
> > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=A3B4H8kLvLDD
> > > H
> > > > AAYvRzveY09uFOBMr805O_uWxQmLRM&e=
> > > >
> > > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > > 3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dexpl-
> > > > 2Dtrack-2D13&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > >
> > >
> > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=TG7cPqa1m7LKi
> > > > Hevo2tvZm4uqipF4gU6MDp0Q_jfEpQ&e=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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:
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_inte
> > > > rn
> > > > et-
> > > > 2Ddrafts_&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > >
> > > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=LDR59TMdGZL
> > > W
> > > > rvkvp_MJXRgt1FSLYgwTCFbUnRffKgE&e=
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > BESS mailing list
> > > > BESS@ietf.org
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > > >
> > >
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Sc
> > > > bfh0UjBXeMK-
> > > >
> > >
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > > >
> > >
> > m=DmUVKSwroxeVL5S2E2OSMZu0ifKhOhxZJJr8dR2HXmU&s=BeypOtOdbV5x
> > > > DkM3hqVLXSveWQuyJ3MSOBTj1itnAqY&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>