Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF5D3A0B4B; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 B_wHcSRqBzyN; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 6F5653A0B3B; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id f3so2676840ioj.1; Wed, 06 May 2020 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3DtQEX+Fh0wrj3QLdJZ9bsSSEbycZ666Rk6GDXm54Uk=; b=ESH84hkcc8lmabKB/Yu6C2NSp3vgvrZV1huqHNXwW68xvk+YLvr5eko2qj3oQoNyso 2BXF/KRLhMiu+YNdnP0FSxub1A130cB/w/6eX8rohl8llnEG3AE9VzycQxDXe7mFAHtB 4SDOZYLs4GCThDqr8HaD5c03pLP9uBWq43ZQm+vjsqgfcTSEUCR6YkJr7dhl93YnnMf5 rMYYjTvyIRAQgB8U7x4g2tFWHxoYJJafkzKc+pFBuwPJvrKQZYAVKHSho6XZGo1ewpAc +YFqLvSmRWBoUbg93eKDcAuWU1NB035DFM6eGgj/bPddHqlLqa+z6aYD1YNWwMCxPIuk KbkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3DtQEX+Fh0wrj3QLdJZ9bsSSEbycZ666Rk6GDXm54Uk=; b=P2VEglTBojYgAMBpT/BcmYh7RKTHhwBouyIT8llWpUw5I4elSguzbNx24NnkQ2BjNs g3QCkwFvxZjW0V7TIuVbgLoMPgM0pErzhOmg/2VOQzoHcresd2s3QU8FBVnAcOxK4npD Bqp6EZQoUE8otJQh/M22J1RUh1WEHn0v9FsgxW919WxtQdtvuGuDP1TYvXV58h4hUfeD ocP+xUWMsEzmhcQT1DiRV50UtLQEl30pgW4E5VVGGt1a1uQntZUcxGHYRL90DJ2T6Lsu NTCUfoZGFx3Sx7AwgaggGcT9KAOChouWrbmf0HN1i1BVWSvMBmhhdVXgACcE4lSaC0aQ a9Iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ2aOvwW4Dn0FHvEeiBKj6kGalVVBkkizk+iuJqi01Km0lY3Yy0 lklMUBJLjseREexRIRowYrl9A41E6hDOUa00HqVmbO6fBUo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLjWXYGNYD7bPLlXrZ79imwPzVAdbciRrp2naphC8GoVLkfwmePc103G93Gwwk0cmLYySGdPmsATpzb9dkoexc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:8785:: with SMTP id t5mr8741030jai.15.1588779644535; Wed, 06 May 2020 08:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158867189453.14412.14632358918213286203@ietfa.amsl.com> <8dd49248-84bd-a546-8fee-767ab75a182a@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8dd49248-84bd-a546-8fee-767ab75a182a@cisco.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 21:10:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn65wcH23q1XO7EtONc7C38dyu43pMiWb0KoZspo7jdKmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/-GXHT547No-BQ9HAljjLI5h5JC4>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:40:52 -0000

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply, snipping to points that need further discussion...

> What about:
>
> Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane relies on Interior Gateway
> Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and OSPFv3 [RFC8666] to signal
> labels.
>

Much better.


> > (3) Section 4
> >
> >     The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
> >     advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
> >
> >     Do you mean to differentiate between support for the capability itself v/s
> >     support for 'advertisement' only. But RFC 8662 says that ERLD value is
> >     advertised only when following conditions are met:
>
> What is meant is that even though all the below conditions are set, if
> the node does not support the advertisement, one can not conclude what
> its ERLD is.
>
> If the node supports the advertisement of the ERLD, but the below
> conditions are not met, the node should not advertise the ELC capability
> in a first place.
>

There are two things here - (a) the actual load balancing capability
of a node (b) the capability to advertise the ELC/ERLD. Usually
capability and the advertisement of the capability go together. In
this case we want to be explicit that the absence of ERLD-MSD
indicates just (b) and not (a).

You do use the word "only", so may its all fine! I will leave it to
you/shepherd.

> >
> >     *  MUST be entropy label capable and, as a consequence, MUST apply
> >        the data-plane procedures defined in [RFC6790].
> >
> >     *  MUST be able to read an ELI/EL, which is located within its ERLD
> >        value.
> >
> >     *  MUST take into account an EL within the first ERLD labels in its
> >        load-balancing function.
> >
> >     Thus, I am not sure about this sentence. Maybe you mean to say that the
> >     absence only indicates that the ERLD-MSD value of the node is unknown (and
> >     it might still be capable of handling ELI/EL)?
> >
> > (4) Section 4
> >
> >      What would be the behavior if an OSPF router receives a ERLD of the node
> >      but no ELC set for the corresponding prefix? That would be an error as per
> >      RFC 8662, we should specify how one handles it within OSPF. If it is to
> >      just ignore the ERLD, we should explicitly say that.
>
> the behavior is specified in the RFC 8662.  OSPF is just a messenger,
> not the consumer of this information.
>

Is there some text in RFC 8662 the clarify what one does on the
receiving side? I found only the sending conditions in section 4. How
does a receiving node behaves when he receives conflicting
information, which one does he trust (no ELC present or ERLD=10). We
could have interop issues here if you leave it open.

Thanks!
Dhruv

PS. Since the comments are the same for the IS-IS I-D, no need duplicate them.