Re: [Idr] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 29 June 2016 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.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 A9F8212D1B1; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 RdWCqEsqnMrq; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0390C12D520; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6467; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467237259; x=1468446859; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Xe1cViduwIw5ob90+BdbWNq02SqvZ5ah2FF9WwQ84n4=; b=P9sklwPZMIYZQGh5QfBQeSex1wq+BBW1Q7KHgyRnETPzxvTyPNfKwQpz ehXsxGYtFvSyOBnZG39GUBuIDQWaLscwerJUbHLOXkeKHHhhfBGSGm+Pn RYb0JbeLp4O9M+w7oprwNqpNLOpxaU3nfI5Eb1TwXSa5umc9zYbphzFBI o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D5AQDVQnRX/5FdJa1bgz6BUwa3N4IPgXuGGAKBNDgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhE0BAQQ6PxACAQgYHhAyJQIEDgWIMMM5AQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBAR+GKIRNihsBBJNQhTUBjj2BaYRUiGiQAgEeNoI7gTVuiEl/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,548,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="123308965"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2016 21:54:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5TLsH44024560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:54:18 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:54:17 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:54:17 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Thread-Topic: Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRprRTmhXdCvFQWUW3H4yt0d2g+J+qizoAgByzwQCAOiXpgA==
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:54:17 +0000
Message-ID: <D399BBAF.131B92%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20160505095556.15385.64588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D350D7AE.123BE3%aretana@cisco.com> <D368DC4F.127463%aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D368DC4F.127463%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B9A8DBEE01FFD94298EDB30595EECBFD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dt6Vb8HH2fH_PVH0qXdi3zLuLUg>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 29 Jun 2016 21:54:32 -0000

Ping!



On 5/23/16, 5:55 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

>On 5/5/16, 11:36 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>Jari:
>
>Hi!  Took me longer than I thought...
>
>Please see below and let me know if you think it is clearer -- I'll then
>include it in the next version.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Alvaro.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When the ADD-PATH Capability is also received from
>>>>the IBGP peer with the "Send/Receive" field set to 1 (receive
>>>>multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) for the same <AFI,
>>>>SAFI>, then the following procedures shall be followed:
>>>>If the peer is a route reflection client, the route reflector SHOULD
>>>>advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths)
>>>>received from its non-client IBGP peers.  Depending on the
>>>>configuration, the route reflector MAY also advertise to the peer the
>>>>Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from its clients.
>>>
>>>I am picking this text excerpt as an example.
>>>
>>>Like Paul, some of this language makes me slightly uncomfortable,
>>>and it would be good to understand what the aim is. If the intent
>>>is to describe a procedure that can be followed and fully specified,
>>>the expectations on the text are different from an informative
>>>description of the kinds of things an implementation could do.
>>>
>>>In the above text, there's quite a lot of imprecision. That may
>>>be fine, but I wanted to check that this is the case.
>>>
>>>For instance, why is a "shall" (and in lowercase) followed by
>>>a set of "SHOULD"s and "MAY"s? Is there any guidance on
>>>when the "SHOULD"s should be followed? There seems to
>>>be thinking behind, could that be documented? What kind
>>>of configuration issues affect the decisions?
>>
>>Yes, I see what you mean.  I think that at the time we wrote the text we
>>were probably thinking in terms of "SHOULD" because this is one of the
>>options (Group Best Paths vs All the Paths), but within that option we
>>can
>>be more precise.
>>
>>We will work on clarifying and get back to you -- I'm traveling, so it
>>might take a couple of days.
>
>
>OLD>
>5.1.  Route Reflection
>
>   Depending on the configuration, for a particular <AFI, SAFI> a route
>   reflector SHOULD include the <AFI, SAFI> with the "Send/Receive"
>   field set to 2 (send multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple
>   paths) in the ADD-PATH Capability [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] advertised
>   to an IBGP peer.  When the ADD-PATH Capability is also received from
>   the IBGP peer with the "Send/Receive" field set to 1 (receive
>   multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) for the same <AFI,
>   SAFI>, then the following procedures shall be followed:
>
>   If the peer is a route reflection client, the route reflector SHOULD
>   advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths)
>   received from its non-client IBGP peers.  Depending on the
>   configuration, the route reflector MAY also advertise to the peer the
>   Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from its clients.
>
>   If the peer is a non-client, the route reflector SHOULD advertise to
>   the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from
>   its clients.
>
>5.2.  Confederation
>
>   Depending on the configuration, for a particular <AFI, SAFI> a
>   confederation ASBR SHOULD include the <AFI, SAFI> with the "Send/
>   Receive" field set to 2 (send multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive
>   multiple paths) in the ADD-PATH Capability [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
>   advertised to an IBGP peer, and to a confederation external peer.
>   When the ADD-PATH Capability is also received from the IBGP peer or
>   the confederation external peer with the "Send/Receive" field set to
>   1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) for the
>   same <AFI, SAFI>, then the following procedures shall be followed:
>
>   If the peer is internal, the confederation ASBR SHOULD advertise to
>   the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from
>   its confederation external peers.
>
>   If the peer is confederation external, the confederation ASBR SHOULD
>   advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths)
>   received from its IBGP peers.
>
>
>
>NEW>
>5.1.  Route Reflection
>
>   For a particular <AFI, SAFI> a route reflector MUST include the <AFI,
>   SAFI> with the "Send/Receive" field set to 2 (send multiple paths) or
>   3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the ADD-PATH Capability
>   [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] advertised to an IBGP peer.  When the ADD-
>   PATH Capability is also received from the IBGP peer with the "Send/
>   Receive" field set to 1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive
>   multiple paths) for the same <AFI, SAFI>, then the following
>   procedures apply:
>
>   If the peer is a route reflection client, the route reflector MUST
>   advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths)
>   received from its non-client IBGP peers.  The route reflector MAY
>   also advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available
>   Paths) received from its clients.
>
>   If the peer is a non-client, the route reflector MUST advertise to
>   the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from
>   its clients.
>
>5.2.  Confederation
>
>   For a particular <AFI, SAFI> a confederation ASBR MUST include the
>   <AFI, SAFI> with the "Send/Receive" field set to 2 (send multiple
>   paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the ADD-PATH Capability
>   [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] advertised to an IBGP peer, and to a
>   confederation external peer.  When the ADD-PATH Capability is also
>   received from the IBGP peer or the confederation external peer with
>   the "Send/Receive" field set to 1 (receive multiple paths) or 3
>   (send/receive multiple paths) for the same <AFI, SAFI>, then the
>   following procedures apply:
>
>   If the peer is internal, the confederation ASBR MUST advertise to the
>   peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths) received from its
>   confederation external peers.
>
>   If the peer is confederation external, the confederation ASBR MUST
>   advertise to the peer the Group Best Paths (or the Available Paths)
>   received from its IBGP peers.
>
>
>
>
>
>