RE: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00
Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com> Tue, 09 March 2004 16:15 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06514 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:15:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0jtR-0003gh-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:15:45 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B0jsJ-0003VQ-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:14:36 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0jrI-0003B9-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:13:32 -0500
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B0jbx-000Jhu-E0 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:57:41 +0000
Received: from [65.205.166.188] (helo=jera.movaz.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B0jbl-000Jce-NH for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:57:29 +0000
Received: from lb-laptop.movaz.com (kenaz.atlanta.movaz.com [172.16.8.184]) by jera.movaz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041845F6C; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:57:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040309105433.04e3fcb8@mo-ex1>
X-Sender: lb@mo-ex1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:57:27 -0500
To: Nic Neate <Nic.Neate@dataconnection.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>
Subject: RE: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Satyanarayana, Arun" <aruns@movaz.com>, "Berger, Lou" <lberger@movaz.com>, dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F8028708DE@baker.datcon.co.u k>
References: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F8028708DE@baker.datcon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Nic, In one-on-one discussions at the IETF the authors agreed to do just these two things! I know we're hoping to get the first part done late this week/early next week. I can't speak for the other authors (of the other half of the to-be-merged draft) on the second part. Lou At 07:41 AM 3/9/2004 -0500, Nic Neate wrote: >Hi Adrian (and draft-aruns authors), > >Responses below. In summary, I agree > - with the suggestion of being able to request RecoveryPath messages > - that it would be very helpful if the procedures for recovering from >simultaneous adjacent restarts could be clarified. > >Thanks, > >Nic > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Farrel > [<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 12:47 PM > > To: Nic Neate; aruns@movaz.com; Movaz Networks - Louis Berger; > > dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 > > > > > > Hi Nic, > > > > > I've just read your draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 > > and it looks good. > > > In particular, we've been looking at using Restart for Fast > > Reroute LSPs for > > > some time and this draft provides everything that is needed > > (like recovering > > > the FAST_REROUTE, DETOUR, SENDER_TEMPLATE and ERO > > > objects from the downstream node when they are not > > available from upstream). > > > > Good. This concern was also raised in Seoul, and I am pleased > > to hear that the draft > > addresses these requirements. > > > > > However, I have a couple of concerns (not related to Fast Reroute). > > > > > > - Your draft doesn't tackle, and won't work for, > > simultaneous restart of > > > adjacent nodes. This is a problem that is tackled by > > > draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions, so merging the > > two drafts in > > > some way may be the best way to resolve that. I realize > > that the Aruns > > > draft aims to make Restart possible for nodes which cannot > > retrieve state > > > from the data plane, and in that case recovering from > > simultaneous restart > > > of adjacent nodes isn't easy. I think including some > > further extensions for > > > nodes which can retrieve some state from the data plane would be > > > appropriate. > > > > Retrieving state from the data plane only answers half of the > > problem. However, it is > > certainly important to audit the recovered control plane > > information against the known > > data plane state. > > > >Indeed. My point was that if you can't retrieve even the outgoing signaling >interface from your data plane following a "nodal fault", you haven't got >much hope of reconstructing protocol state in between two nodes which >restarted at the same time (without some serious protocol enhancement >anyway). Hence the suggestion of additional extensions to recover from >adjacent restarts for nodes which can retrieve the outgoing signaling >interface. > > > With regard to adjacent node failures and restarts, I believe > > there are actually > > sufficient capabilities here. Perhaps the authors would like > > to include text to clarify > > the procedures. > > > >If this is the case, then no problem. I agree that some text clarifying >that in the draft would be very helpful. > > > > - The back compatibility with RFC 3473 restart looks > > risky. Draft Aruns > > > mandates that restarted nodes don't send Path Refreshes > > until either the > > > recovery period expires or a RecoveryPath is received from > > downstream. In > > > the case that the downstream node only supports RFC 3473 > > restart (and so > > > doesn't send RecoveryPaths), it may well timeout Path state > > at the same time > > > as or very soon after the recovery period expires. Hence a > > dangerous timing > > > window is created. > > > > You have something here. > > However, section 9.5.3 of RFC3473 does not say that the > > neighbor MUST discard state that > > is not restored in the recovery time interval. Presumably it > > would simply recommence > > waiting for state refresh and so would time out after a 3.5 > > refresh intervals from the end > > of the recovery interval. > > > >That would be sensible behavior, yes. My concern (as I'm sure you realize) >is that it won't happen like that in all cases in the real world. > > > Some compromise may be introduced here by noting that 3473 > > says that Path state SHOULD be > > restored within 1/2 of the recovery time. So we could follow > > this logic and use the first > > half of the time interval for the RecoveryPath message and > > the second half for backwards > > compatible recovery. > > > > On the other hand, I would prefer that this new capability > > (support for RecoveryPath > > message) was signaled in the Restart_Capabilities object so > > that the restarting node can > > know whether to expect to receive a RecoveryPath or not. > > > > > As a potential solution to both problems I'd suggest that a > > restarting node > > > receiving a Path message with a recovery label should > > always forward it > > > immediately as well as it can, and include both a recovery > > label and (for > > > back compatibility) a suggested label. Similarly, it should forward > > > RecoveryPath messages immediately as well as it can. I'd > > be happy to > > > discuss any of this further. > > > > This sounds very dangerous. > > "As well as it can" may include path computation which may > > pick a path other than the one > > previously in use. Hence the new Path message will be sent to > > a new neighbor. This > > disaster is no better than the problem we are trying to solve. > > > >Fine. I had in mind that a node should only forward a Path message before >receiving a RecoveryPath if it was sure that it could send it (as per >RFC3473) to the right place and without a dangerous ERO. In any case, I >prefer the idea of being able to request RecoveryPath messages and it sounds >like that will make recovery possible in more situations. > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > >
- draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Nic Neate
- Re: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Adrian Farrel
- Re: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Reshad Rahman
- RE: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Nic Neate
- RE: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Lou Berger
- Re: draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 Reshad Rahman