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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 28 November 2018 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 62AB2129A87; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:30:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.83
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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=juniper.net
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 Ruw0kV---Ero; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38366124BE5; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108158.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wASMNni8014003; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:29:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=tRKVpD9fagED8YPCVRa9rG3Oj0mGRGmsKDm3Q+m7XMo=; b=ZqUGr5J6w/5KuGIhbGL4DVIj0no89pXSiZJ+7Ym4S5GRy2btlpktlRIUGGYaakiaylA7 OCI5p9L10Wi3Aqo/mEB8oO0+BFTdpUvYM2RzEWUs5/oOowHNJz7e0C5tGg6MJnZelFRX EP16kjxDZVaBiJC9OXC5fZBa4w/tsIreD3kHygCWxKA+YtXf5kAveOo2Y6FHPD/91/TZ xMGmo89WLCqP1oiNTMM5xlL7a6Yiu19zTD5mJFJkzXCeWYF0eHTZ5k88LgspRyh1SNSs fr3AQBLNuJwwm9m0jRWtcyUmbGln6QssHSBsuFOwE5cZxXVff5ugCmoibdI/9ZGXCcEy VA==
Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp0017.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.17]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2p1wvurp8f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:29:57 -0800
Received: from BYAPR05MB4359.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.202.140) by BYAPR05MB5718.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.187.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1361.13; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:29:55 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4359.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::49db:c7ca:8b82:9509]) by BYAPR05MB4359.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::49db:c7ca:8b82:9509%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1382.017; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:29:54 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]
Thread-Index: AQHUh2Ib4QmAiBIvjkWj/F8JbfZa/qVlwRiAgAABkMA=
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:29:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR05MB4359BE07BF03EB3E251785B4C7D10@BYAPR05MB4359.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsyXWjVrCMG83HUUmMrSNzUvPvdRE6PSa7OAmOJgNtzMpg@mail.gmail.com> <130DB3CF-2B31-4CAE-ABE6-E1B79A330820@juniper.net> <CAMMESsxSkg-Gqrn3ny_4ntp=AxfZGRvN0_ah+1sLPsyq1wdbNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxSkg-Gqrn3ny_4ntp=AxfZGRvN0_ah+1sLPsyq1wdbNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.600.7
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB5718; 6:T8+xmCOWam1Mr/PvwKxNH0f8E3v1fMzDD/hR223gBbeMe30oNA6MeFGOVATharluqoik70Nc7ljNNxJzGQDNLGwujEWdpmu4xzvtmNDPcwtbH0Ap9hZn/N5ciD+UkyG0TYbpl3WFqRY56HUf09mKpkLN3K0AnXo+SfOwn/qM0GN143xZzXtP5NLPr/8Jlbn61k9LazpIsrGJZ3+Vv96cabWHLlBH/ZInt58Da0qdGvE/MGegPTK5KPTCOJ/NH5OOYG14lavtY7mlg4fgFSd6/6GEu7+Eh10czWTbu4Y0R88cfsMdH7oeRpDy7/u0Z6ggLbB3YlYQiSqiUdD2ujYbqVC++KN4WDqXVLAmdHzH+/+lwsLOYY31n5JkdpxRN6QBIOnIbgyh7DlFu704Zrc5v81jnfJ9E9s6drUKru7nq9W+LyI9zzFl1Z0FqurMTIDegeySt61rqn2NhrxAFece+g==; 5:3J6rXRTDGerOE1MIiDU/lB97s1EUWMR8Aw33k/FOmi3oW7eOi8SjINh8y/366NmfnXaGyOF5YosDkVdbsN+gzK8MvFJqrbElxvLvVIWzhqCi7MGqgF1y3GrcAu1Fcowy8/ACziG4A5C2XNZyqvWIPCxeECLksPD5B5/busHuhhQ=; 7:VLsSyAE8+zwBA1s3ihXsNfR1gsrbxhJG2UbMs3PjVbsNpQuK4dEmnr4kKjIxqoNxMF5L6XzA9FnnlZWAeE2i4/qSLB37J15oGTaXGX2bBEOKJ3TEBuGZpbUjjQePZrXPwuVWkk1sk7XaLT1z/SIVqA==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(199004)(51444003)(189003)(37854004)(54906003)(106356001)(110136005)(105586002)(6636002)(551984002)(76176011)(81166006)(8936002)(81156014)(55016002)(236005)(256004)(6306002)(9686003)(39060400002)(54896002)(8676002)(229853002)(66066001)(6246003)(53936002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(68736007)(316002)(14454004)(6436002)(606006)(5660300001)(1941001)(11346002)(74316002)(966005)(446003)(97736004)(476003)(7736002)(486006)(2906002)(86362001)(102836004)(99286004)(53546011)(33656002)(6506007)(26005)(25786009)(478600001)(3846002)(6116002)(790700001)(186003)(7696005)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB5718; H:BYAPR05MB4359.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5181ea99-7861-47d0-9647-08d65581053f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB5718;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB5718:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB5718CB4CEAFE41C5A66F5667C7D10@BYAPR05MB5718.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(3231443)(999002)(944501441)(52105112)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:BYAPR05MB5718; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB5718;
x-forefront-prvs: 0870212862
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: RyNxShzgouLB4ZLeVubqvobWA1n82Tc8TtQjHhJzVHPiowem/whJLs//drZcKBcSUKqdNpHk1/9s6iggCXndjV9eXEtf6RfeEKoRGiUa4LVGSY2ePc+umplxyWcT6WCuuTdu9zTtwXz2/wANUw3JfxowgBPbTTYui1s+mZA0jKnDGsGP/1Qhwo+zoky63A4Fa/v9R+A1Ppi/53GqeNeUpf2877S1STgU/fQ5J/ryX9mY5ALpRurB4IJbUhUBKTSqfcYKTWWXFDaBnWnWEnffxlyhRRdB+1E1jL1EhbHHXLet/n9oy77yDAyh9Fpu33YuZjHDfrF/aCNFUspa6Og8eMmSRHxuYm2xMabEMQw8jEY=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR05MB4359BE07BF03EB3E251785B4C7D10BYAPR05MB4359namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5181ea99-7861-47d0-9647-08d65581053f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Nov 2018 22:29:54.5293 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB5718
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-28_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811280193
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CD1x_53NzRhez3c-M_LSkI3cdEo>
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 22:30:02 -0000

Alvaro,

As I said, John’s suggestion is correct and it does match 7471, which is also correct.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 5:16 PM
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org; Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

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=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=yVSlstlwtIdGa4qM-eRQ34GeMj3p0oJ-3o1oowPEliM&s=oT_lg8iuCpiS6QvtFpdsRsCB5JfciH-CfY-WoN62KBI&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=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=yVSlstlwtIdGa4qM-eRQ34GeMj3p0oJ-3o1oowPEliM&s=oT_lg8iuCpiS6QvtFpdsRsCB5JfciH-CfY-WoN62KBI&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=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=yVSlstlwtIdGa4qM-eRQ34GeMj3p0oJ-3o1oowPEliM&s=lXqn9HIHadpGZfWJux2kr2WUCFsp-XXM1Epmv4uxNjU&e=>


On November 28, 2018 at 4:33:54 PM, John Scudder (jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>) wrote:
+lsr to the cc

Hi Alvaro,

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