Re: [ippm] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-route-08

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Ignacio, I have added your NEW text to the working version.
Al


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of J Ignacio Alvarez-
> Hamelin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:26 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; rtg-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-route-08
> 
> Dear Stewart,
> 
> Here is the correction on the previous part:
> 
> ======
> This procedure requires to compute quartile values "on the fly" using
> the algorithm presented in [P2].
> 
> Minor English issue - missing text after requires
> ======
> NEW
> 
> This procedure requires the algorithm presented in [P2] to compute
> quartile values "on the fly”.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	J. Ignacio
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> Dr. Ing. José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
> CONICET and Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Buenos Aires
> Av. Paseo Colón 850 - C1063ACV - Buenos Aires - Argentina
> [phone] / 5285 0705
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__cnet.fi.uba.ar_ignacio.alvarez-2Dhamelin_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=M3YmjIQx0fRYuePHMB4-
> eL81RTxXhx9rxjCedmHPofU&s=dxdbx5s1hKosBmwmgPBmyO4gtTyx34fo4_WDVZizodU&e=
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> P.D. Thanks Rüdiger!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On 7 Jul 2020, at 02:27, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stewart,
> >
> > Thanks, you are right, there are more options and the text should
> reflect that. I've reviewed the section and suggest some more
> clarifications below.
> >
> > Regards, Ruediger
> >
> > OLD
> > Early deployments may support a so called
> >   "Entropy label" for this purpose.  State of the art deployments base
> >   their choice of an ECMP member based on the IP addresses (see
> >   Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]). Both methods allow load sharing
> >   information to be decoupled from routing information. Thus, an MPLS
> >   traceroute is able to check how packets with a contiguous number of
> >   ECMP relevant addresses (and the same destination) are routed by a
> >   particular router.  The minimum number of MPLS paths traceable at a
> >   router should be 32.  Implementations supporting more paths are
> >   available.
> >
> > NEW
> > Late deployments may support a so called
> >   "Entropy label" for this purpose.  State of the art deployments base
> >   their choice of an ECMP member interface on the complete MPLS label
> stack
> >   and on IP addresses up to the complete 5 tuple IP header information
> (see
> >   Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]). Load Sharing based on IP information
> decouples
> >   this function from the actual MPLS routing information. Thus, an MPLS
> >   traceroute is able to check how packets with a contiguous number of
> >   ECMP relevant IP addresses (and an identical MPLS label stack) are
> forwarded by a
> >   particular router.  The minimum number of equivalent MPLS paths
> traceable at a
> >   router should be 32.  Implementations supporting more paths are
> >   available.
> >  .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Juli 2020 18:47
> > An: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-
> [e-mail]
> > Betreff: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-route-08
> >
> > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > This is a well written document with a technical point that needs
> addressing and a couple of small nits, other than that it is ready to go.
> >
> > ========
> > Early deployments may support a so called
> >   "Entropy label" for this purpose.  State of the art deployments base
> >   their choice of an ECMP member based on the IP addresses (see
> >   Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]).
> >
> > The entropy label is a relatively modern concept and I am not sure how
> widely it is deployed. Older routers used either a hash on the labels as
> far down the stack as they could reach (the goal was to include the BoS
> label this was a VPN or a PW), or (more commonly) reached over the label
> stack (sometimes
> > incorrectly) and hash on the five tuple of the payload.
> >
> > ======
> > This procedure requires to compute quartile values "on the fly" using
> the algorithm presented in [P2].
> >
> > Minor English issue - missing text after requires ====== For reasons
> pointed out by one of the other reviewers, it is a pity that Class C is
> used, but it seems to be well embedded in the technology and would be
> difficult to change.
> > =======
> > Nits says that there is a requirements language problem. I think that
> may be that it is simply in the wrong place. It would be good if it were
> fixed to prevent other reviewers also needing to deal with this point
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=M3YmjIQx0fRYuePHMB4-
> eL81RTxXhx9rxjCedmHPofU&s=jc0Qu5cvjWUUk-9ni2TMhivNPh4-Th1f62BrChzmkwk&e=