Re: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the new Extensions
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 06 October 2007 11:22 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ie7k0-0001CS-SU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:22:40 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ie7jv-0002DN-2C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:22:40 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Ie7at-000LmV-JB for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:13:15 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.1
Received: from [212.23.3.140] (helo=pythagoras.zen.co.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1Ie7aq-000Lly-Cj for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:13:14 +0000
Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by pythagoras.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ie7an-0005UQ-M8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:13:09 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:13:09 +0100
Message-ID: <046401c80809$dfb94cd0$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Bardalai, Snigdho" <Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com>, "Ccamp (E-mail)" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
References: <A278CCD6FF152E478C3CF84E4C3BC79D0222F53A@rchemx01.fnc.net.local>
Subject: Re: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the new Extensions
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:12:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2007 11:13:09.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[E06B37B0:01C80809]
X-Originating-Pythagoras-IP: [88.96.235.138]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 827a2a57ca7ab0837847220f447e8d56
Hi Snigdho, Always good to have reports of use of the more advanced functions. Some thoughts... We can do some work to fix up the SRefresh behavior, but I don't think it actually helps, because if Summary Refresh is not being used, exactly the same scenario can arise with a Path Refresh. In other words, fixing the SRefresh would not fix the problem. In some circumstances, the window in the scenario you have drawn is very small.. The SRefresh *and* the Path Refresh must be sent by N1 between N2 completing restart and N2's first Hello arriving at N1. One could say that N2 should ignore all received messages until it has Hellos up and running. That would guarantee that N1 knew about the restart. That simply requires that when startup completes N2 must: - either - immediately send a new Hello to each neighbor or - respond to any first received message from a neighbor with which it does not have an active Hello exchange by sending a Hello - ignore all subsequent RSVP messages except Hellos from neighbors with which it does not have an active Hello exchange We should understand why N2 sends PathErr. "Resources in use" could either mean that *all* resources are already in use, or the limit resources required on the Path message (i.e. Upstream Label or Label Set) are already in use. In all cases, the error code should indicate that the requested new resource allocation cannot be satisfied (N2 thinks this is a new LSP). In the case of no resource being available, the PathErr MUST [3473] contain "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure". In the case of failure because the Label Set cannot be satisfied, the PathErr MUST [3473] carry "Routing problem/Label Set". In the case of failure because of Upstream Label N2 MUST [3473] send a PathErr with "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value" and MAY include an Acceptable Label Set object. So, I would suggest that N1 may be over-reacting to the PathErr from N2. Presumably N1 expects that the LSP is up and running - ii already has Resv state and data is probably flowing. So any of these three error codes (all of which represent LSP setup errors) should cause N1 to suspect something slightly strange is happening. Before getting too agitated and taking the dramatic step of tearing the LSP, it should just check that everything else is functioning correctly, and part of that process would be to send a Hello if one has not been sent/received for a considerable period of time. In fact, your situation arises either because the Hello period is set far to large (i.e. larger than the neighbor's whole restart cycle) or because N1 is not considering any difference between normal and hello-degraded states. The former is a configuration error. The latter should allow the PathErr to be treated with more care than a simple PathTear. With regard to your second question. Yes, we believe that all cases of multiple failures are handled by the restart procedures without refresh failure causing state to be deleted. However, the text for this was removed from the graceful restart draft before publication (actually, long ago) as second order failures really clogged up the draft. Instead, we have draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt. I suggest: 1. The situation you describe in your first scenario (with and without SRefresh) should be included in the GR-Description I-D. 2. You should check the GR-Description I-D to see whether it answers your questions about multiple failures. In both cases, I am sure the authors would welcome suggested text and pointer to what they could change. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" <Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com> To: "Ccamp (E-mail)" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:18 PM Subject: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the new Extensions Hi, I have a couple of questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the new extensions being propose in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-09. Did anybody come across any issues when the hello interval duration times the failure multiple (typically 3) is too large compared to the neighboring node restart duration? For example, if the RSVP-TE interval is 10 seconds, the multiple is 3 and the neighboring node restarts within 10 seconds then it is possible that the RSVP-TE hello will never detect a hello failure. RFC3473 does describe detection of a node restart in this case based on a new source instance in the hello message, but we have come across an issue with NACKs being generated for an Srefresh message in this scenario. Please look-at the sequence diagram below: N1 N2 | | | X (Restart start) | HELLO | |-------------------------------->| | | | SRefresh | |-------------------------------->| | | | HELLO | |-------------------------------->| | | | X (Restart complete) | SRefresh | |-------------------------------->| | NACK | |<--------------------------------| | Path (without recovery label) | |-------------------------------->| | X (resoure allocation failed because the resouces are in use) | PathErr | |<--------------------------------| | PathTear | |-------------------------------->| X (CON deletion) X (XCON deletion) | | The issue is because N1 did not detect a hello failure it continues sending SRefreshes which may get NACKed by N2 once restart completes because there is no Path state corresponding to the SRefresh message. This NACK causes a Path refresh message to be generated but there is no RECOVERY_LABEL because N1 did not yet detect that N2 has restarted because hello exchanges have not yet started. PLEASE NOTE: This is based on an actual implementation and a real test. What is the solution to this issue because I don't see either N1 or N2 doing anything that is not compliant as per the current RFCs? Or is there something I have missed? The other issue I wanted to understand is with respect to the graceful restart extension. Will the RecoveryPath message handle issues when communication fails and a node restarts? There may be issues when somes nodes in the LSP path gets isolated from both upstream and downstream ends. Example, A---B-x...x-C---D---E-x...x-F---G Nodes C, D and E are isolated. If this condition persists and node's C,D and E restarts. Will the LSP get deleted after the recovery timer expires in node D? Can this be prevented ? Would appreciate your response. Regards, Snigdho
- Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the new… Bardalai, Snigdho
- RE: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… 蒋维廉
- Re: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… Dan Li
- Re: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… Dan Li
- RE: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… Bardalai, Snigdho
- RE: Questions on RSVP-TE Graceful Restart and the… Bardalai, Snigdho