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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Exactly

S


On 21/01/2017 18:42, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Eric, Les and all,
>
> I concur with Eric. RTM capability is a kind of TE information that 
> the path computation algorithm must take into account when selecting 
> the suitable path for the LSP that would be used for RTM purposes.
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sasha
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell: [phone]
>
> Email: [e-mail]
>
> *From:*Eric Gray [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:32 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Uma Chunduri 
> <[e-mail]>; John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Acee 
> Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Alexander Vainshtein 
> <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Abhay 
> Roy (akr) <[e-mail]>; Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> Les,
>
> It’s nice to have a good discussion about technical aspects of a 
> proposed standard, even late in the game.
>
> But I have some difficulty is seeing how this usage is “clearly not TE 
> information.”
>
> This information should allow the head-end of an LSP to select a path 
> based on desirable interface capabilities.  For the purposes of 
> accurate time information, the best path may not also be the shortest 
> path.  Is this not exactly what traffic engineering is about?
>
> As far as extending this argument to the ability to advertise 
> additional link capabilities, I can easily imagine scenarios where 
> that would make sense.  But nobody is suggesting that every LSR (or 
> router for that matter) either must have this capability for every 
> scenario, or that – having the capability – it would need to be turned on.
>
> If there is an application or use-case out there that might require 
> advertising every conceivable interface capability, then vendors will 
> want to take a look at the size of the opportunity represented by that 
> and make a decision as to whether or not to support this.
>
> --
>
> Eric
>
> *From:*mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Les Ginsberg 
> (ginsberg)
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:11 PM
> *To:* Uma Chunduri <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; John E Drake <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Alexander Vainshtein 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr) 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Robert Sparks 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> Uma –
>
> I readily admit S-BFD descriptors are – strictly speaking - a 
> violation of the “non-routing info” policy – this was publicly 
> acknowledged at the time the drafts were written. The exception was 
> justified on the basis that:
>
> o IGPs are BFD clients
>
> o The S-BFD discriminator information is unique and extremely modest 
> in size
>
> What we have here is a proposal to start advertising non-routing 
> related interface attribute information. There is nothing special or 
> unique about RTM – it is simply one of many interface attributes which 
> are generic in nature. Having agreed to advertise RTM in the IGPs, how 
> would you then determine what other interface attributes should/should 
> not be advertised by the IGPs? Take a look at your favorite vendors 
> box and see how many interface attributes can be configured.
>
> It is also concerning that – when using the IGPs – we flood 
> information which must be stored on every node even though the use 
> case for it is limited to a much smaller subset.
>
> I think we can and should be smarter in this regard – and given the 
> extensive work being done to enhance manageability I would like to see 
> us benefit from this.
>
> The authors of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time clearly had some 
> thoughts in this regard – which is why they proposed to use RFC 6823 
> (GENAPP) in IS-IS to advertise the information –but the proposal in 
> the draft is flawed in this regard. If we were to head in the 
> “application” direction I would propose a much more generic 
> “application” which is capable of advertising many interface 
> attributes. However this goes back to my original concern – whether we 
> want to use IGPs to flood interface attribute information unrelated to 
> routing even if it is segregated under an application. Remember that 
> RFC 6823 stipulates that a separate instance of the protocol (a la RFC 
> 6822) be used for such cases.
>
> Les
>
> *From:*Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:41 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); John E Drake; Acee Lindem (acee); 
> Alexander Vainshtein; Greg Mirsky
> *Cc:* Abhay Roy (akr); [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Sparks; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> I support advertising this in IGP.
>
> >This is clearly not TE information –..
>
> >I do not see the IGPs as the appropriate mechanism to flood generic 
> interface capabilities
>
> We have instances where both the above are not met and we flooded 
> information.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7883(Les, you co-authored the same!!)
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7880
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
> *From:*mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Les Ginsberg 
> (ginsberg)
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:25 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Alexander 
> Vainshtein <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* Abhay Roy (akr) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Robert Sparks 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> John –
>
> For me, this raises the age-old question of when it is/is not 
> appropriate to use IGPs for flooding information.
>
> This is clearly not TE information – you just happen to be using this 
> in conjunction with MPLS – but it is a generic capability. I do not 
> see the IGPs as the appropriate mechanism to flood generic interface 
> capabilities. It also, as Acee has pointed out, results in flooding 
> information to all nodes in the domain when only a few care about it.
>
> Les
>
> *From:*John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:54 AM
> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; Greg Mirsky; Les 
> Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr)
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> Acee,
>
> Relying on an omniscient controller is a non-starter in general and in 
> particular because the protocol by which it would learn each node’s 
> RTM capabilities and distribute them to the other nodes is undefined.  
> Further, one of the ways by which an omniscient controller learns a 
> node’s capabilities is by snooping the link/state database.
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
> John
>
> *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:47 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Les Ginsberg 
> (ginsberg) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
> Hi John,
>
> *From: *John E Drake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexander 
> Vainshtein <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Les Ginsberg 
> (ginsberg)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *Robert Sparks <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Abhay Roy 
> (akr)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>     Acee,
>
>     We discussed all of this with you over a year ago and used your
>     guidance in adding the indication of RTM capability to OSPF.
>
> I’m sorry but I focused mainly on the OSPF protocol aspects then and 
> didn’t question the use case. This question came up in the IS-IS WG 
> discussions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>     Yours Irrespectively,
>
>     John
>
>     *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:38 AM
>     *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Les
>     Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>     I guess what we were trying to envision the use case and whether
>     it makes sense for all the nodes in the IGP routing domain to have
>     this information. Would the LSP ingress LSR only need to if the
>     egress LSR supports RTM and it is best effort recording for
>     transit LSRs in the path?
>
>     Additionally, if it is needed in the IGPs, should there also be a
>     BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV proposed?
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Acee
>
>     *From: *Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM
>     *To: *Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Robert
>     Sparks <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     "[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         I concur with Greg: from my POV an interoperable solution
>         should not depend on an omniscient NMS client distributing
>         information about capabilities of each node to each other node.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Sasha
>
>         Office: [phone]
>
>         Cell: [phone]
>
>         Email: [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
>         *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:01 PM
>         *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Robert Sparks <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>         Hi Les,
>
>         I believe that IGP extensions to advertise RTM capability are
>         required.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Greg
>
>         On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             Greg –
>
>             I am having trouble understanding your response.
>
>             The question we are raising is whether we should extend
>             the IGPs to support advertising RTM capability – an
>             alternative being to retrieve the capability via network
>             management.
>
>             Saying that the IGP functionality is optional and/or
>             wouldn’t always be advertised doesn’t really answer the
>             question of whether we should or should not define the IGP
>             extensions.
>
>             Could you respond more directly to this point?
>
>             Les
>
>             *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>             *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:44 AM
>             *To:* Acee Lindem (acee)
>             *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>             [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg
>             (ginsberg); [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>; Abhay Roy (akr)
>
>
>             *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of
>             draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>             Hi Acee,
>
>             the draft defines optional functionality. If an operator
>             has no use neither for PTP's Transparent Clock, nor RTM
>             itself as performance metric, then RTM sub-TLV would not
>             be included and thus it would not be flooded. Of course,
>             it be right to reflect RTM capability through YANG data
>             model, thus allowing SDN scenario you've described.
>
>             Regards,
>
>             Greg
>
>             On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Greg,
>
>             Although it is a bit late, we’ve had some discussions
>             amongst the IS-IS and OSPF chairs and are wondering
>             whether the interface capability belongs in the IGPs. This
>             will be flooded throughout the entire routing domain – is
>             it really needed on every node or will it the RTM testing
>             be initiated from an omniscient NMS client that would know
>             the capabilities of each node or easily query them using
>             YANG?
>
>             Thanks,
>
>             Acee
>
>             *From: *mpls <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM
>             *To: *Robert Sparks <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>             "[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>             <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>             "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Review of
>             draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>
>                 Hi Robert,
>
>                 thank you for the most expedient review and comments.
>                 I'll make changes in Section 2 per your suggestion.
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                 Greg
>
>                 On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Robert Sparks
>                 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>                 wrote:
>
>                 The changes all look good.
>
>                 I still think you should say something in the document
>                 about what "the time of packet arrival" and
>                 "transmission" means, and call out the point you made
>                 about being careful to not introduce apparent jitter
>                 by not making those measurements consistently. (The
>                 definitions you point to in your earlier mail from
>                 G.8013 don't really help - they just say "time of
>                 packet arrival". Again, the first and last bit are
>                 likely to be several nanoseconds apart so I think it
>                 matters. Perhaps you're saying it doesn't matter as
>                 long as each node is consistent (there will be error
>                 in the residence time measurement, but it will be
>                 constant at each node, so the sum of errors will be
>                 constant, and the clocks will be ok?)
>
>                 Please look at the new first paragraph of section 2 -
>                 there's a mix of "as case" and "in case" that should
>                 be made consistent. I suspect it would be easiest to
>                 simply say "referred to as using a one-step clock" and
>                 "referred to as using a two-step clock" or similar.
>
>                 RjS
>
>                 On 1/18/17 12:03 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
>                     Hi Robert,
>
>                     Sasha Vainshtein came with elegant idea to address
>                     disconnection between discussion of one-step and
>                     two-step modes that you've pointed out. We've
>                     moved Section 7 as sub-section into Section 2 now.
>                     Attached are updated diff and the proposed new
>                     version -13.
>
>                     Regards,
>
>                     Greg
>
>                     On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Greg Mirsky
>                     <[e-mail]
>                     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                     Hi Robert,
>
>                     once again, thank you for your thorough review and
>                     the most detailed comments. I've prepared updated
>                     version and would greatly appreciate if you review
>                     the changes and let us know whether your comments
>                     been addressed. Attached are diff and the new version.
>
>                     Regards,
>
>                     Greg
>
>                     On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Robert Sparks
>                     <[e-mail]
>                     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                         Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>                         Review result: Ready with Nits
>
>                         I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this
>                         draft. The General Area
>                         Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF
>                         documents being processed
>                         by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat
>                         these comments just
>                         like any other last call comments.
>
>                         For more information, please see the FAQ at
>                         <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
>                         Document: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>                         Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>                         Review Date: 2017-01-10
>                         IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17
>                         IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02
>
>                         Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as
>                         a Proposed Standard
>
>                         I have two primary comments. I expect both are
>                         rooted in the authors
>                         and working group knowing what the document
>                         means instead of seeing
>                         what
>                         it says or doesn't say:
>
>                         1) The document is loose with its use of
>                         'packet', and where TTLs
>                         appear when
>                         they are discussed. It might be helpful to
>                         rephrase the text that
>                         speaks
>                         of RTM packets in terms of RTM messages that
>                         are encoded as G-ACh
>                         messages and
>                         not refer to packets unless you mean the whole
>                         encapsulated packet
>                         with MPLS
>                         header, ACH, and G-ACh message.
>
>                         2) Since this new mechanic speaks in terms of
>                         fractional nanoseconds,
>                         some
>                         discussion of what trigger-point you intend
>                         people to use for taking
>                         the
>                         precise time of a packet's arrival or
>                         departure seems warranted. (The
>                         first and
>                         last bit of the whole encapsulated packet
>                         above are going to appear at
>                         the
>                         physical layer many nanoseconds apart at OC192
>                         speeds if I've done the
>                         math
>                         right). It may be obvious to the folks
>                         discussing this, but it's not
>                         obvious
>                         from the document.  If it's _not_ obvious and
>                         variation in technique
>                         is
>                         expected, then some discussion about issues
>                         that might arise from
>                         different
>                         implementation choices would be welcome.
>
>                         The rest of these are editorial nits:
>
>                         It would help to pull an overview description
>                         of the difference
>                         between
>                         one-step and two-step much earlier in the
>                         document. I suggest in the
>                         overview
>                         in section 2. Otherwise, the reader really has
>                         to jump forward and
>                         read section
>                         7 before section 3's 5th bullet makes any sense.
>
>                         In section 3, "IANA will be asked" should be
>                         made active. Say "This
>                         document
>                         asks IANA to" and point to the IANA
>                         consideration section. Apply
>                         similar
>                         treatment to the other places where you talk
>                         about future IANA
>                         actions.
>
>                         There are several places where there are
>                         missing words (typically
>                         articles or
>                         prepositions). You're less likely to end up
>                         with misinterpretations
>                         during the
>                         RFC Editor phase if you provide them before
>                         the document gets that far
>                         in the
>                         process. The spots I found most disruptive
>                         were these (this is not
>                         intended to
>                         be exhaustive):
>
>                           Section 3: "set 1 according" -> "set to 1
>                         according"
>                           Section 3: "the Table 19 [IEEE..." -> "Table
>                         19 of [IEEE..."
>                           Section 4.2: "Detailed discussion of ...
>                         modes in Section 7."
>                         -> "Detailed discussion of ... modes appears
>                         in Section 7."
>                           Section 10: "most of" -> "most of all"
>
>                         In Setion 3.1 at "identity of the source
>                         port", please point into the
>                         document
>                         that defines this identity and its
>                         representation. I suspect this is a
>                         pointer
>                         into a specific section in IEEE.1588.2008].
>