Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-next-hop-08
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 16 October 2014 00:32 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5E11A0070 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no
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 w9m-JvvAiNKG for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E021A0059 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=87.143.107.186;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@pfrc.org>, idr@ietf.org
References: <20141015170045.GM18720@pfrc>
In-Reply-To: <20141015170045.GM18720@pfrc>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:32:20 -0400
Message-ID: <012f01cfe8d8$a7905df0$f6b119d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQE8xEV4AXayWSF7T/etZ3My9wnjuJ1X6LqQ
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RPLpl9xH0RruCdk4imzfRi5q3pM
Subject: Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-next-hop-08
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:32:26 -0000
Jeff: Thank you for the comments. I agree these need to be addressed. See my summary post. Did I correctly summarize your concers? Sue -----Original Message----- From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:01 PM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-next-hop-08 With my apologies to the authors of the draft after they gave ample time for pre-publication review, I just didn't have time before -08 was submitted. After some discussion with Keyur about the purpose of the draft, some of my concerns have been addressed as to the possible use cases for the feature. The new draft is somewhat better about describing those use cases, but still isn't really clear that this is meant to supplant the BGP (MP_)Nexthop fields for purposes of forwarding. Somewhere in the document it should say that. :-) My main remaining concerns are as follows: ----- Bestpath considerations: Basically, this says "use the worst tunnel endpoint cost". However, in a network that may contain a mix of speakers that understand this attribute and ones that do not and may use the BGP (MP_)Nexthop, route selection may be inconsistent. Multiple remote nexthops: This was my original concern when it wasn't apparent that this feature wasn't being used for chaining and instead is simply an odd form of "add-path for nexthops" by loose analogy. Section 8 seems to imply that the desire is that the RNH is effectively bound to the same device, but there's no guarantee of that. (Hence the man-in-the-middle concerns.) While there's a comment about bestpath calculation, there's no related commentary about which tunnel should be used or whether there are ECMP considerations if you can use more than one tunnel endpoint. Origination/modification: The sane behavior of this feature appears to be that the originator of the attribute is the only party that is adding to it. Intermediaries may remove remote nexthops for various reasons, including error handling. If this understanding is correct, it should be spelled out in the document. Nits: Too many typos and inconsistencies to comment on in this format. If the authors arrange for the XML source to be posted somewhere (e.g. github), I'll submit patches. In short: looking better, looking less scary, still needs some work. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-nex… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote… Keyur Patel (keyupate)
- Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-vandevelde-idr-remote… Susan Hares