Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 16 January 2017 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D161295F3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3Ur5TeapcwzU; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 CDC841295F1; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m124so69671065oif.1; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uTKHEeb332bfYguYIc/bLXTIqWsVm8Rkp2+cOT1+Gz4=; b=P+hkESiywBNOyysfTs2dUaFJZKXkuXvT2EC9Fz71UDkW/LpWwU1eIDHrtJDjxKmLPq 4iCsn0kdpVNnMWgqWS9Ah3XxDQxFdUpJ4uvc2MJGyL7oc+rliMCyQWKfZpeNPz9Mr/rD eqkN5PDl+1mu4jh+q7TlxMrhZf4miPd5UZhHyXgJElKFA7OKovx01GQe4nOMeuj61MYy 4YieKGqbG5OKJS36O/4Nfc5QCsAnTLgDkkUGBdwSpWyex2Fg2ny7Pr+eoo9wsp5ogsHn PJyYIUUKbZnSJkKLmygh8M7jD4M/Y5ciASfMk5ce8JMO7Rz54METPa2mKLWdUe1HkJ89 Qi8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=uTKHEeb332bfYguYIc/bLXTIqWsVm8Rkp2+cOT1+Gz4=; b=J/bMr00gmNt6YcOqfucRq4c4ESDshaLLFDzy3ICNV5PptqDRSDsPsml5etIX+SvMPy ANz2ImUSn1a13J1FqcmJMFg+UB7d2hU5jhMUsKMs4qU/h0wzS8tLZolEs2vwflUfQpkQ EH9eOMb+2n6+YbxZeIAspAanFQ5gbmb1R3Q3QvsYchCRW6mJiUfmos3wTcpXj3uBXb1+ /Zmjk4qdqEFtkpNsWyID6iu8k574Br4P+fSngupA4jCzCFMk7G4w6i2ktfAx2rz3bjDl 7nsxWv9q0PKrwFVzJ19mHfyKpo1oBhpnu9QWTZVPK0+6mEOUS7JWlBrK6UDRM/tCLbFY FwXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI/tPp/vLUZtvuccGXNN2SCbsK5x+TCZYQ98hylHiP1utAGY75z9hq5feO6Kinq6zkRbeko0e62MgJxPw==
X-Received: by 10.202.172.136 with SMTP id v130mr17516635oie.167.1484589687128; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.1.103 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170113195505.GC24768@elstar.local>
References: <148429722186.26907.8095583118694640603.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmWaeo5JuijFMEG+MvO6VqtV3T2_cibbU_cXas2+oLFk9A@mail.gmail.com> <20170113195505.GC24768@elstar.local>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVdcF-uL0btfLF=6813V+8KdrPpOz9356zirFsUhK2OGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, ops-dir@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce9bcf0474c054639f8f7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iGq_DXEpq-8h5MXiM8gw28xx900>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:01:29 -0000

Hi Jurgen,
I apologize for confusion, been thinking of Port ID. Indeed, the Interface
ID is local ID and used in case of unnumbered interface as described in
section 4.7.1.3:

   Interface ID
      The identifier assigned to the link by the node specified by the Node ID.

Thus it MAY be SNMP' IfIndex , as you've pointed out. The document
leaves it to the implementation.


Regards,

Greg



On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:11:57AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > >
> > > - Does the Interface ID related to other interface numbers, e.g.,
> > >   SNMP's ifIndex? Or is this an entirely separate number space? Or
> > >   does it depend on the implementor's choice?
> > >
> > GIM>> This comes from PTP. AFAIK, it is different from SNMP index.
> >
>
> If this is specifically a PTP Interface ID, it might be desirable to
> be explicit about this and that it may be different from other numeric
> interface IDs. (This is what I heard you saying, I do not know much
> about PTP and surely not any details how PTP defines Interface IDs.
>
> /js
>
> PS: This was actually the only operational comment I had. From an
>     operational perspective, it is important to know whether interface
>     numbers us a common or possibly different numbering scheme.
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>