Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Fri, 05 April 2019 13:29 UTC
Return-Path: <david.i.allan@ericsson.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 5709012004E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 T61B2pHieRHx for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr690047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.69.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1743120424 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DHflODiM+3VDjqNORtaV5hLRz47V6WWCoC5EIwZB0+Y=; b=U6htYVmz1DHckrxgthstYbxFhjbqb8hEVPk1RcOvL+xPG5VQEu+tgN2OsZLU/tuSVwQz/cWgTye3z9g7kB2A8UYVjji9yIYYFITfQah2SznsgLJViYW2+AVD2yizaiNAE05FgF2rw1uv5PNYec57BqSHW3aqzp2Ip03WQK0vMlM=
Received: from BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (20.178.239.16) by BYAPR15MB2919.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (20.178.236.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.22; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:28:56 +0000
Received: from BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::84c2:a1f3:4f63:c09a]) by BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::84c2:a1f3:4f63:c09a%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.016; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:28:56 +0000
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "tony.li@tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
Thread-Index: AdTqkbHsqMouS91uR3+cx5O9DydfsgAEveUAAAFawJAAAQ+AgAAANmRwAAIufgAAAfTScAAEByuAAAzdKqAAAUqnAAABKNWQAAVbToAAAUgiYAAAEamQAALlAOAAH+JKMA==
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:28:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR15MB3078E0DD8A8DD0205F861E3CD0510@BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR11MB375152970011BD7563A8E271C0500@BYAPR11MB3751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DE048608-1403-431D-BD88-27D95E49E089@tony.li> <BYAPR11MB375129E24A8D1C0BB5E4D598C0500@BYAPR11MB3751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <89E37338-8E33-43F9-B8AB-76DD1884914C@tony.li> <BYAPR11MB3751127FEA49D06038EBE623C0500@BYAPR11MB3751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0c505c69-955f-4eb5-c0b0-820ec8e0019f@cisco.com> <BYAPR11MB3751BE6C14F9879D482EF377C0500@BYAPR11MB3751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7cc74779-8825-dfc5-b87e-b9f494133add@cisco.com> <BYAPR15MB3078AEBB55A61477277BA1AED0500@BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <76B663DD-B500-477B-9957-F38A5F8D7B7E@tony.li> <BYAPR11MB3638B96F6A55A85E83CA42D0C1500@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR15MB3078135CDC0EBCCBFC119CBCD0500@BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR11MB3638B63D0F595E4FEB7482D7C1500@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR15MB307810175C52052B24DC2035D0500@BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR11MB3638A1416A29144DDF69EE6EC1500@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3638A1416A29144DDF69EE6EC1500@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=david.i.allan@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [206.47.221.212]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c9e624c1-3920-4b64-9849-08d6b9caa763
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(49563074)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR15MB2919;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR15MB2919:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR15MB2919956477F8ADBF461976AED0510@BYAPR15MB2919.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0998671D02
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(136003)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(446003)(478600001)(2906002)(7696005)(71190400001)(486006)(68736007)(66066001)(6506007)(966005)(76176011)(33656002)(102836004)(97736004)(6116002)(229853002)(3846002)(256004)(53546011)(14444005)(71200400001)(6436002)(86362001)(476003)(25786009)(74316002)(9686003)(11346002)(105586002)(53936002)(8936002)(186003)(14454004)(106356001)(6306002)(54906003)(81166006)(6246003)(2501003)(110136005)(55016002)(26005)(316002)(4326008)(52536014)(81156014)(7736002)(99936001)(5660300002)(305945005)(99286004)(8676002)(93886005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR15MB2919; H:BYAPR15MB3078.namprd15.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: sL9rJWicJhDw7nnEit7CyjIEI6eVv4pc+iLOjbe21SMCW6wNVbo5hPbuRDcLgpTm+CvWt9hmlvPthFfyH0bZ40XU1a807s+ss4oLKDQpuBaGnIzdO4CMHzqK15tjeeURLbm+3BrM93tCjgALCssmEUVO7V0LjIXTdML2okfsPJKo8YUwzVylGpuXieRFlQezbZI+hj3Wr+NdQ/r1kyOTgtzNvz2wspe11ZtqMMNcLW+dg/sg6PgmwR31ACkW+/aXCZmVeLdOKgbKXX36BUUQZlkcXtjrG1DG01JVCnRPSu3XjbvFc5slSXxT7SgllWNQ8VbVqs6YK83wdRvSrQenEwSJq2fhkKT3NWKg5V+6NsAV1hMP3FzmSY0wmcofLmfp7WPxODHqQPdV77S0sLud9Mv55I0IsEJak+Yz3Y6c9bw=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01D4EB91.F4EC2910"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c9e624c1-3920-4b64-9849-08d6b9caa763
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Apr 2019 13:28:56.1067 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB2919
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_rV9KoDkugWGlYtHobKFU6sMo40>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
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, 05 Apr 2019 13:29:03 -0000
HI les I also find it undesirable to enforce unidirectionality. Receiving an LSP on an unexpected interface should be treated as an artifact of a loss of synchronization IMO. Thanks Dave -----Original Message----- From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 6:44 PM To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; tony.li@tony.li Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Dave - IGP flooding on a link is by specification bidirectional. It is OK if A arbitrarily decides not to initiate flooding an LSP to neighbor B, but the meaning of unidirectional flooding implies that A is allowed to reject incoming LSPs if they are received from B. This would require implementation changes which I think are undesirable. It isn't clear that there is a requirement to do so - and after private conversation with Jakob - it seems that is not what he intended. But it is that concept which Peter and I (at least) are finding undesirable. HTH Les > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:53 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; tony.li@tony.li > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter > Psenak > (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction > > HI Les: > > Then I assume there is a subtlety around this I am missing, I assumed > this was purely a sender selectable behavior (e.g. if new send on this > set excluding that of arrival), and had no other ramifications. The > non-overlap of specific sets at either end of an adjacency determined > the directionality of the FT usage of a given link. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:49 PM > To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; tony.li@tony.li > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter > Psenak > (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction > > Dave - > > Blocking flooding on a subset of the interfaces is easy to do. > > Changing flooding to operate on a specific interface in a > unidirectional manner is a much bigger ask. > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of David Allan I > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:14 PM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; tony.li@tony.li > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter > > Psenak > > (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction > > > > HI Les: > > > > Actually it should not be that bad. Once you are restricting the set > > of interfaces you would send an LSP on, you've already crossed the > Rubicon. > > > > At least that is the view from here... > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> > > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 1:44 PM > > To: tony.li@tony.li; David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter > > Psenak > > (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction > > > > But the point that Peter has made needs to be heeded. > > Changing IGP flooding to be unidirectional is non-trivial and should > > not be done w/o justification. > > > > One of the things the FT draft has been very careful about thus far > > is to not change the operation of the Update process on a given link. > > We allow links to be excluded from the FT but we do not change > > flooding behavior on a link when it is part of the FT. > > We have also gone so far as to indicate that even if a link is NOT > > part of the FT but we do receive an LSP on that link we acknowledge > > it in the standard fashion. > > > > I think all of this simplifies the deployment of the feature and we > > should be careful before introducing additional changes in standard > > protocol behavior. > > > > Les > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tony.li@tony.li > > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 10:04 AM > > > To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> > > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Peter > > > Psenak > > > (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com> > > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction > > > > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > > The algorithm in draft-allan actually has the notion of > > > > upstream, > > > downstream > > > > and both upstream and downstream FT adjacencies. However as a > > > generalized > > > > form is still a WIP and has yet to demonstrate merit against any > > > > of the other approaches on the table, I'd not be looking to > > > > suggest a specific encoding. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > If at some point it is decided that different classes of FT > > > > adjacency are required, simply using additional types that share > > > > the format of the flooding path TLV would appear to be > > > > sufficient....(?) > > > > > > Or perhaps having a separate TLV for a unidirectional path would > suffice. > > > > > > That would allow both paths to be encoded most optimally. > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Lsr mailing list > > > Lsr@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
- [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Acee Lindem (acee)