Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFC4129A87; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.992
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.992 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, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 gFDyzXmEsEMW; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (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 C549E12D4E7; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 32so25091691ota.12; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DlYTQljLLJysr2mjKyjHzg5JrdlLUNg48mBYDJD2Xsk=; b=nXEJDmnkPmskU4ZJpnTuWvhBj50ZeWxoAbl9QVto/ZuwhEWbQ6yaPIYy3/+EeR63hg 0jYtIYVTG3FnsOMmB9SAzHM4KSEtEVJnWh1XY4SJSFXo18pHrlIzTswZPR5HG1xNin05 DQGIYUYoaDzZYyYCyPCFCcy9oPf81CgDDcyPdmDR2tjNmqKB5Wi8SivnqqGcE2qixp/p wgXJnja0GlMqqss/oIirPtfZeAda1tgYzAWd7H1gWHz+1EkL/36CNOHD07E8OQa5RBNX pqT6hulempdoVKYGZrQ2ZLRxor4d5UBC8JDJiUw1sggp6w7vwJcPUHd0ljzpRsRLeqJr UmHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DlYTQljLLJysr2mjKyjHzg5JrdlLUNg48mBYDJD2Xsk=; b=RSNbm4FZcG5ea3JI+v5aLcRcNq80LdVpJfyYupuuBjq25E4Umji+8AUdkACL7m/hjC L9dmhQ04BGSJL7Bse6aYmXxdNvMM9sQmCLhDQGZqhepjHsdseHTO+Ro3ebgAnk6tY6kV xc+wNpSwptGZwJRKqdxKxznuLAhC425/tt9F+RM3CbEm9MR2dfIZAzzcTJ5cOBD65AYp 4rsS9r3K0SD3gE/g2krtbw+XcTr6ljGX5XqE4KhlcsUpqAcu6YIyixgLgE7urZNtcMHJ 6/NA91SCXwvgkkWqkf79At7atyDEx3IuyDZgKgzYNg+dIQsno5ui6/WJ0M4PTGCpgo1u SzBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZZjeomibs3CEfWbz9QjQsLIr3Z83opcstE5oLjE4FA3IhWqbv6 H2NPeTKYTEAk/0LshijYJzhgDH+qbk8BiqtwhTQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VNaYKJBdgZ1Ziq+eB5HlBROVYnbW4Y5OgVU9YFj0bwgHU/QeZErVuNFzIExPleIrjuUc6A3oIfV684QUAtTZY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2269:: with SMTP id o96mr23353479ota.45.1543444493967; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:53 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EA69FF7A-F255-4735-8BFA-6E02EF0025AA@juniper.net>
References: <CAMMESsyXWjVrCMG83HUUmMrSNzUvPvdRE6PSa7OAmOJgNtzMpg@mail.gmail.com> <130DB3CF-2B31-4CAE-ABE6-E1B79A330820@juniper.net> <CAMMESsxSkg-Gqrn3ny_4ntp=AxfZGRvN0_ah+1sLPsyq1wdbNQ@mail.gmail.com> <EA69FF7A-F255-4735-8BFA-6E02EF0025AA@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Airmail (528)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:34:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESswRVQVMQKOMD07kPZZH3=wV63k7n+CqhTnyKPHkw9-+0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org
Cc: Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb25d7057bc12cde"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8V5KZ6GHVVpAyvVPTpg8nUbYsn4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:34:58 -0000

I am explicitly copying the authors of rfc7810bis to get them involved in
this discussion.  Also cc’d lsr-chairs.

Even if the two versions are algebraically identical, and because the
definitions in draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp depend on *both* documents, I would
prefer it if the text was the same to avoid any confusion.  We are still in
time to make changes to either rfc7471 (erratum) or rfc7810bis.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On November 28, 2018 at 5:26:06 PM, John Scudder (jgs@juniper.net) wrote:

Ah, I was looking at an old version of 7810bis, sorry about that.

ISTM that:

- if the two versions are actually algebraically identical (as I speculated
but do not insist) then it would be nicer to adopt the "available bandwidth
is defined to be the sum of the component link available bandwidths"
version since it matches the language in RFC 7471 and is less confusing
that way, but if they're logically identical it doesn't reeeeally matter.
- if John Drake is correct in his reply that the "available bandwidth is
defined to be the sum of the component link available bandwidths" is
correct (implying the other version isn't, for some reason), then 7810bis
is wrong and needs to be changed.
- If 7810bis is correct, and John is wrong, then there needs to be an
erratum against RFC 7471.

I think that covers the universe of possibilities. I still don't know which
is right, though.

No additional charge,

--John

On Nov 28, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

John:

Hi!

I should have pointed to the current version of rfc7810bis [1], which now
reads:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlsr-2Disis-2Drfc7810bis-2D02-23section-2D4.5&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=UIR3n8QFqMcpIKK1NmO9BrP-njmMKHptlvEREQcIxuo&s=0daHEmhaKMcCIi-F__AxqMzBxXWku3wzPDTyxUtIXRo&e=>)
minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link residual bandwidths (see Section 4.5
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlsr-2Disis-2Drfc7810bis-2D02-23section-2D4.5&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=UIR3n8QFqMcpIKK1NmO9BrP-njmMKHptlvEREQcIxuo&s=0daHEmhaKMcCIi-F__AxqMzBxXWku3wzPDTyxUtIXRo&e=>)
minus the sum of the
   measured bandwidth used for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE
   label switched path packets on all component links.

This version gets rid of the duplication and uses “residual”.  Because it’s
been through WGLC I am assuming it is correct.  If not, please let me know
*now*, as I am about to start the IETF LC.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlsr-2Disis-2Drfc7810bis-2D02&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=UIR3n8QFqMcpIKK1NmO9BrP-njmMKHptlvEREQcIxuo&s=aovcawRyAFXXQOnv4OtrmiyQVPjHYoFO_XMm1CjdKuA&e=>


On November 28, 2018 at 4:33:54 PM, John Scudder (jgs@juniper.net) wrote:

+lsr to the cc

Hi Alvaro,

On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

[major] AFAICT, Available Bandwidth is the only definition that is
different between rfc7810/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis and rfc7471.  The
difference comes from the correction made to address this report [1].
Instead of trying to fix the definition here, I think that a similar report
should be filed against rfc7471.  Please submit it and I will approve.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid5486&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=pNTkxj6RjNdyIYjBZKCUjdk9QWVKbBBhnnfj9xq2jjU&s=QvXYEMqBgaIkuM7plcuybtDVxI3JTI-4EndPcX0ier8&e=>


Maybe I'm missing something but isn't that erratum all wrong?

Here is why I think so. I agree that there is a problem with the RFC 7810
paragraph in question:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  *For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link available bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.*


It seems obvious that there was a cut-and-paste problem or similar, since
the same sentence is duplicated with minor changes. But the erratum leaves
the duplication! The erratum wants it to be:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  *For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link (residual) bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.
*


So the proposed "fix" is to leave the sentence duplicated, but change
"available" to "(residual)" in the first copy? I don't think that could
possibly be right. Just eyeballing it, it seems to me as though the correct
fix would be to change the paragraph to be:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link available bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.


in which case it would match RFC 7471. Or possibly:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link available *residual* bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth
used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.


I have no idea which of these is right, but the erratum can't be right.
Naively, they look algebraically the same, it's just a matter of where in
the equation you subtract the measured bandwidth. Maybe they truly are
exactly equivalent or maybe there is some subtlety that makes one right and
one wrong.

If the first option above is right, then RFC 7471 looks to be correct as
written. If the first option is wrong, then RFC 7471 would need its own
erratum as you suggest, I guess.

$0.02,

--John

P.S.: I see the defect remains in draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.