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

["Lizhong Jin" <[e-mail]>]

OK, thanks.

 

Regards

Lizhong

 

From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2014年4月17日 11:58
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,

 

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