Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05.txt

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Lizhong,

I don't think you need a new section, just the new text in 5.3.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> See inline below. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Lizhong
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 2014年4月17日 1:42
> *To:* Lizhong Jin
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
> draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05.txt
>
>
>
> Lizhong,
>
>
>
> You're welcome! Continued inline, with unnecessary text trimmed ...
>
>
>
> Minor Issues:
>
>
>
> Section 5.3: The draft includes two variants of the 3:1 protection model,
> referred to as options A and B. However, it does not provide any criteria
> or guidelines for selection between the two either for code implementation
> or network operation. The draft should state whether one or both are
> required for implementation (I would guess both) and how to choose between
> them operationally (there are hints if you read between the lines, but it
> should be explicit). It is also implied (but again not explicitly stated)
> that both domains should choose the same option. That should be explicitly
> stated, if correct, and should be repeated in Section 6.
>
> [Lizhong] Thank you for pointing out this. This is the missing part for a
> standard track draft.
>
> The implementation MUST support option A, and MAY support option B. Option
> B will be useful when the two legacy PEs in one domain does not support the
> function in this document. The two legacy PEs still need to support PW
> redundancy defined in [RFC 6870], but be configured as slave node.
>
>
>
> Andy: Are you going to update section 5.3 to include this text?
>
> [Lizhong] yes. Or we could have another section “Backward compatibility”
> to include the second sentence. Any suggestion?
>
>
>
>
>
> The Section 6 will be updated as below:
>
> When deploying the inter-domain redundancy mechanism described in this
> document, some manual operation/negotiation is required to be done
> correctly and securely.  For all the options described in section 5.2 and
> 5.3, each node within one RG should be configured with same redundancy
> mode, and both domains should choose the same option. For the two-PWs
> redundancy options defined in section 5.2, the two operators should also
> negotiate to configure same high/low PW priority at the two PW end-points.
> If the configuration consistency is broken, the inter-domain redundancy
> mechanism may not work properly.
>
>
>
> Andy: Could you simplify this to:
>
>
>
> When deploying the inter-domain redundancy mechanism described in this
> document, consistent provisioning is required for proper operation. The two
> domains must both use the same use case (section 5.2 or section 5.3).
> Within each section, all of the described modes and options must be
> provisioned identically both within each RG and between the RGs.
> Additionally, for the two-PWs redundancy options defined in section 5.2,
> the two operators must also negotiate to configure same high/low PW
> priority at the two PW end-points.  If the provisioning is inconsistent,
> then the inter-domain redundancy mechanism may not work properly.
>
> [Lizhong] accepted, thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>