Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Bruno:

I’m sorry that part of the email did not come through.  See below along with comments.

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 8:29 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

Sue, Thank you for your reply. Please see inline [Bruno] Orange Restricted  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tLzM0NTNiMTA0NWM0MTU0YWQwMDA4OTY2MmVkOTA2MDNkLzE2NjMzMzEzNDcuMA==#key=09d3527e0c663491992d0f16a1804a56>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Sue,

Thank you for your reply.
Please see inline [Bruno]



Orange Restricted
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 1:20 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

Bruno:

I’m sorry this response is so delayed (M to Friday)
[Bruno] Definitely not an issue on my side.

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 8:09 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)


Sue,

Thank you for your clarification questions.
Please see inline.



Orange Restricted
From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 8:09 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

Bruno and John:

The target for the adoption for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01
is a bis draft for [RFC6790] to fix a bad RFC.

The IDR chairs did start this call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01
to compete with draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability-08.txt or
other drafts regarding next hops or bgp attributes
(e.g. draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 as a “bis” document).


Thanks for the info. Why is there a desire from IDR chairs to bring a second solution (draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label) to compete with the first (draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability)?
- Is this that in general two solutions are better than one?
- Is this that the WG expressed comments/limitations on draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability?

[Sue]:  IDR has in the past standardized the existing solutions on its way to the final solution.  I see this as another case of that approach.  My understanding is that John’s solution has multiple implementations to fix the “bis”.  Draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability has nice generic properties, but no implementations.

[Bruno] Your answer is not showing in my mailer. Would you be kind enough to retype it?
[Sue2]: let me know if you see it now.

Bruno argues that it would be better to include this in
draft-ietf-next-hop-capability-08.txt as a fix.

For this shepherd to monitor this portion of the adoption call,
I need John and Bruno to provide additional input:

John: you need to address Bruno’s comments on

“So ELCv2 is not to be used. But this draft is more or less saying the opposite in Appendix A, therefore I object the content of Appendix A.
ELCv2 is a proprietary solution. Migrating away of ELCv2 may be handled without the IETF.”

Bruno: if we are going to consider draft-ietf-next-hop-capability-08.txt
as alternate short term fix to [RFC 6790] I need to know the following:

Why do you say that draft-ietf-next-hop-capability is a short term fix, while it 1) fixes the problem and 2) it provides a generic tools to advertise BGP Next-Hop dependent capability which will be needed for current MPLS WG evolutions (In Stack Data, Post Stack Data)?
Why are you considering draft-ietf-next-hop-capability as the possible alternate while it’s the solution been adopted by the IDR WG. In my opinion those qualifiers “alternate” and “if we are going to consider” would better apply to the recent individual draft (draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label)

[Sue]: Bruno.  Perhaps it is my English.
Short term == are you ready to go to WG LC now?

[Bruno] Why not if this helps, minus the fact that so I’m not familiar with the procedure that I’m assuming you’re meaning (WGLC then parking the document in the IDR WG while waiting for 2 implementations?)
But I’m not sure to see what this would change in term of implementations, publication of RFC, and period of time.
        [Sue2]:  My question should have been – does draft-ietf-next-hop-capability have 2 implementations?
        Does draft-ietf-next-hop-capability define an equivalent to draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01?

A “bis” == a fix to an existing document’s text errors with no additional content.
Alternatives ==  alternatives to problem of broken existing document: 1) bis, or 2) bis fix + other

[Bruno] The WG already has an alternative to the broken document (RFC 6790); it’s draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability Why would we need an alternative to this alternative?
    [Sue]: Because draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability does not have implementations now, and the draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 does.


1) Do you have a specific proposal for adding this fix to
draft-ietf-next-hop-capability?

If the WG express the need for a non-transitive BGP attribute in order to avoid the software upgrade on the RR it seems straightforward for draft-ietf-next-hop-capability to replace the non-transitive attribute with a transitive attribute recording the latest BGP NH which has modified the attribute. I don’t recall such request from the IDR WG.

             [Sue-2]: if you posit that it is straight-forward, I would suggest you write preliminary text.

2) what is the implementation status is for draft-ietf-next-hop-capability-08.txt.
 [how many implementations and how many features]?

I’m not aware of any publically announced implementation.
[Sue]:
No implementations == longer term solution
in draft-ietf-next-hop-capability-08.txt

[Bruno] Both draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label and draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability have no public implementation. So by this logic, both should be equally named as long-term, and not a reason to duplicate the solutions.

[Sue]: I have two vendors giving me information on implementations of draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label.  I can take private information on draft-ietf-next-hop-capability-08.txt, if you have vendors implementing this draft.


How
MPLS transitioning away from “Entropy Label for the New Thing”
does not really impact a “bis” draft.  The focus here is publishing a fix
to a broken draft.

- If the focus is publishing a fix for a broken draft, we already have a WG document for this: draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability
- IMO, as we know that we need the signal more than ELC, it looks more futureproof to work on a generic solution. draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability provides this generic solution, draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label does not

[sue-2]: I will comment on this part of your email – once I have caught up to the mail threads.

[Bruno] Ack. For the record, above comment is from Sue, not Bruno.
[Sue-2]: Agreed.  I really should have drunk more coffee this morning before typing this response (smile).  I’m afraid the typographical error comes from that point.

Regards,
--Bruno


Thank you,
Regards,
--Bruno

As shepherd, I expect that John Scudder and Bruno will answer
these questions as part of their upcoming posts.

Cheerily, Sue



From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)


Sue,




Orange Restricted
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:32 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption and IPR call for:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxNzEsSgjAQRdGtUBlLPiZEYORWmnQrFJhQnTBQy71rZk5f3Xfe4uBNjI2YS9nzqBRCgcIQVmK5ULnJxHeFKShkuJU2hwORuF2QW4qF0_5sN5hoU-LUiLVKkcrvY3TX-8GcVZ6BKV8jvmYZ0kNZ19nJaNcFZzoHqLXuB-_PhIP22qIy3ltrjXUXqStKFZ34iEkiBQaKdE0M8U7VqwXW4m_6fAEpdkKt.MEUCIAo1RxyokpED3nkkr2p8szUmHv2k3z3s_98RFOrFz2NDAiEA-rUKhABT2BlTyx5cAIRRKqbfLC4oAuqrN-D9bo-Wwk0>

The co-authors should respond to this message with an IPR statement.

The specification revised the BGP attribute for Entropy Label Capability.
The abstract of the document states:

  “This specification defines the Entropy Label Capability Attribute
   version 3 (ELCv3), a BGP attribute that can be used to inform an LSP
   ingress router about an LSP egress router's ability to process
   entropy labels.  This version of the attribute corrects a
   specification error in the first version, and an improper code point
   reuse in the second.



1)    We already have a solution for this; an IDR WG document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability-08<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxNzEuOwjAQRdGtII_xDzsmYcRWKq4CRwQ7qhRSf8Teac96-nTf-VUvXtXloIrItl-sRRAQhvwgNgvJzTS-W2zZFnmuFhluovuuF2Rd6Ut0aZvOsMG8rIt8azeq40E9ullJ_t7eDWOa_MnuBZj2a8WfYnJ72hCHMHsXhxz9EAGdc-OU0olwcskFtD6lEIIP8WxcR6mjM79qM0iZgSpdG0O9U_d6gb34N70_EwFF-Q.MEYCIQCIhR11JbYXYa1xiqU0lRQCdeggAyInmlk6tlNno66jcQIhAPXEhYyAmq9GXD_5XmiSN7bVEw3tEgw0RO5laWvyoRWd>

“This document also defines a Next-Hop capability to advertise the

   ability to process the MPLS Entropy Label as an egress LSR for all

   NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE.  It updates RFC 6790<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxNjEsSgyAQBa9isU7BIB8_K6-CMEpKhdSIm6Ry94Sssn2vu1_sop2NDYulPM5RiOCKK-T8hsTvWBaeaRUhexHLsQtavO0GYLeGbdVKWL6_BNPbQbbijI7wnFJ4Ru7zIZQ2apagjdfSaBcAoB-sbTEMYEEFIa1VSkmlO_6LYo3OdKXMA3pymHDK5NKKtVeJUIm_6f0B1A46dA.MEQCIFirC6y1DQPlGCc_B5O8nVFoUavq95Yj2BPgymteMFmNAiA9d8WlGorw1NObIOtzLZg8jMXu8KteGTHKHzdZQctglw> with regard

   to this BGP signaling.”

I don’t recall that the WG expressed an issue on this solution. Nor asked for the use of a non-transitive attribute.
Now if there is a compelling reason to use a transitive attribute, this can be discussed by the WG as part of regular WG work on draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability. If needed, both drafts may also be merged.


2) Initiating a technical comparison of transitive vs non-transitive attribute:

Non-transitive:
- require the software upgrade of PE, ASBR, RR

Transitive:
- require the software upgrade of PE, ASBR.
- require the re-implementation, test and debugging of the non-transitive-like filtering.

All in all, small gain in term of deployability at a small cost in term of implementation. Obviously, “small” is in the eye of the beholder.
Regarding software upgrade, the only difference is the BGP Route Reflector which: is a small number of nodes (typically at least two order of magnitude smaller), control plane only / no impact on customers, typically centralized in a very small number of locations, control plane only so very possibly we are talking about a VM or container. I would not call this a ‘forklift upgrade’.

Again, this is a discussion that we can have on the WG document that we have (draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability)

3) lack of feature coverage
draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability is a generic tool allowing the advertisement of different kind of BGP Next-hop dependent capabilities. Entropy label is one, but the MPLS WG is currently defining new data plane features (In Stack Data, Post Stack Data) which will require to advertise different type de capabilities, possibly with related parameters. Therefore the general tool is needed. (and some people in the MPLS WG have even proposed to deprecate the Entropy Label for the New Thing, so defining a new BGP Capability just for Entropy Label may seem a bit late). There are other usages for other dataplane such as IOAM (another IDR WG using draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability)

4) In all cases, I don’t think we need two solutions for this simple problem. (the operational differences are small, a few %)


In your comments consider:
1) Does this specification fixes errors in versions 1 and 2?

2) Are there any additional errors or weakness in this specification
of version 3?  For example, has this specification clearly described what
happens if version 1, 2 and 3 exist in a network?

Not really. As already expressed on the list, what happens if ELCv2 and ELCv1 exist in the network is BGP sessions reset with a major impact on the network.
So ELCv2 is not to be used. But this draft is more or less saying the opposite in Appendix A, therefore I object the content of Appendix A.
ELCv2 is a proprietary solution. Migrating away of ELCv2 may be handled without the IETF.

3) Will deployment of version 3 of Entropy Label Capability
BGP attribute aid in fixing problems in current networks?

4) Are there enough implementations that this draft should
Be moved quickly to WG LC?

There are no implementations of ELCv3.

Regards,
--Bruno

Cheerily, Sue


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.