IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 5E5BC120317 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Xhw+DlWy; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=EeVhqv3h
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 4XjneZJ_F9Me for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 14:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BDA120158 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 14:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15576; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558732897; x=1559942497; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Y4QgEZVXUhomwrJmHpQZ+f9pCRRWo475CeUFXWHSqgg=; b=Xhw+DlWyMxyQq0nr2sFLlSgJ+AbMtXWQ0aahd3SvF5JAGznbT/Eei2eU 1VYArTM+sb/tNpAbqQTUz8fYEy5eXnkpeFkY717BvuRmD58iKp+IOHznt Utygt2/F6U5Cv2kasss1622VIlMZxenIv2HuLgZzhHvsu9RIi9S+ETE4l g=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:HMNy8x8uEPbkTv9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+8ZR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVcGED1bxIeTlRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CdBQA7X+hc/40NJK1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBZYEPLyknA2lVIAQLKIQTg0cDjnlKgg2SWoRQglIDVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhEACF4IoIzgTAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBBBIRChMBATAIDwIBCBEEAQErAgICMB0IAgQBEggagwGBHU0DHQECmxUCgTiIX3GBL4J5AQEFhQEYgg8JgTSLUxeBQD+BEUaCTD6ERhWCczKCJos5CIJIhGCCF4YMjT8JAoINky2CH5QijB9JgSiURQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBZiGBV3AVgyeCD4ElAQiCQopTcoEpjS8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,508,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="275500163"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 24 May 2019 21:21:34 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4OLLYTf020865 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21:34 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 24 May 2019 16:21:33 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 24 May 2019 17:21:32 -0400
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 May 2019 17:21:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Y4QgEZVXUhomwrJmHpQZ+f9pCRRWo475CeUFXWHSqgg=; b=EeVhqv3h7Szjycq9SUNyO3HVsPfmPOnjJZQtFsdhZtjfLe65fJUfl0l0AXAxoKWUmqBIbQ0eW7NDcuQ732M475N6GaHkGZigN03fiZ483MJ7z8RgdRv6Ae6J5plXD2KxBSVoZJFU59F18CLVM81z8n9MSxy+u4PKi++XuKAzT7I=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.237.19) by BYAPR11MB2552.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.226.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.20; Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21:30 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:8693:202d:5a30]) by BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ace2:8693:202d:5a30%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.018; Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21:30 +0000
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHVElkN3wUOP6FDGEK2SYOIeSpqpqZ6sCXg
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21:30 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB36382E3C1406B04E95813829C1020@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF18ct7jj0sSxs02uAvdHSQcm+iUwYXQpjfXU7g28iBLp9dm5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF18ct7jj0sSxs02uAvdHSQcm+iUwYXQpjfXU7g28iBLp9dm5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ginsberg@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1003::199]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f70510fc-246a-4d60-0682-08d6e08dca55
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2552;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2552:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB25522494CAEB03CC807FEA03C1020@BYAPR11MB2552.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0047BC5ADE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(136003)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(478600001)(86362001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(25786009)(5660300002)(2501003)(6436002)(14454004)(74316002)(66476007)(6246003)(7736002)(9686003)(6306002)(54896002)(68736007)(6116002)(81166006)(81156014)(790700001)(8676002)(8936002)(53936002)(110136005)(229853002)(2906002)(55016002)(186003)(316002)(76176011)(33656002)(256004)(102836004)(53546011)(52536014)(6506007)(73956011)(76116006)(66946007)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(46003)(14444005)(66574012)(486006)(476003)(11346002)(99286004)(446003)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2552; H:BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Onsqsf30U5n2FOJOPAWrEDehhT95WzDXuOzWzseKcEtft6qb87GoUtUE0M0PlDzANfu2hdzc0NEvzt+52MZZ2jHzoQPDfkK7ojvj+0oCp7S5zJ6ObSC/4xdLEnPllJ+b+8JfTj9NlgFly65AK0Muu2PAs1VtK+tnT9/IN0oA5O28hLfvZS+LeeSI4MLpfzq3F6qqc6fC0HARHN92X76o/bxduExFfcETyVDESYmqXXHGMNSSdyj+B6d3oL8gPJD4EgzX0uSMqRjr84qYnx7P+pFT7G23Ei0JLryKV8j5YSZcWZggpedbVndm/nMt983S2pQ2f+3rNo92/jgBb3qSuKgmFa1wy21RsyT8oZIxoRGGuCx3MoEVZDnoM2YaW707RWLxStFmOhovOZLU86fEfmnCpEFE8VO8Z/+OJlvOfP0=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB36382E3C1406B04E95813829C1020BYAPR11MB3638namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f70510fc-246a-4d60-0682-08d6e08dca55
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 May 2019 21:21:30.7695 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ginsberg@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2552
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/CG6SZmUk9ecxztGjETpPPJuDPpI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01
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: Fri, 24 May 2019 21:21:39 -0000

Uma –

Inline.

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:49 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01

As asked by chairs I was trying to write the shepherd report on this doc.

Have few quick questions on this work:

1.

Observation: The new text added in 2.2.3 (PR and PA bits) is almost similar  to section 2.2.1 (RR and RA bits)

Now is there any relation of the timer here with T3 (which would have been set by restarting router with the value received with RA bit set, assuming it is lower than the initialized value  65535).

There is no description or guidance on how these values are related and how the restarting router handle this.

[Les:] The timers (T1, T2, T3) are NOT relevant to PR/PA.
PR is sent BEFORE a router does a restart to alert the neighbors that the signaling router’s control plane is going away for a time.

RR/RA are associated with what happens AFTER the router has restarted and now wants to reacquire adjacencies/LSDB.

I do not know what text in the draft suggests to you that there is any relation between PR/PA and RR/RA.

2.

On the text below

"a.  If additional topology changes occur, the adjacency which is in
       planned restart state MAY be brought down even though the hold
       time has not yet expired.  Given that the neighbor which has
       signaled a planned restart is not expected to update its
       forwarding plane in response to signaling of the topology changes
       (since it is restarting) traffic which transits that node is at
       risk of being improperly forwarded. "

Is this any topology change ? Not related to the restarting router in question?

Need clarification text here or point me if I miss something.


[Les:] What constitutes a topology change significant enough to trigger bringing down the adjacency is an implementation decision.
Definition of the conditions is NOT an interoperability issue and therefore does not fall within the scope of the draft.

   Les


Have few more questions/comments overall and shall come back.

--
Uma C..

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email