IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 05:20 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 8D04D1200D8 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 22:20:17 -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=mmFM8e1U; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=oOTO8fIx
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 6KPfm_VXSmns for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 22:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AEF120077 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 22:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559193615; x=1560403215; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=F/oz8yR1aW6tfoTFHB91aZe5jZtiKsCO1v12UyCZJ48=; b=mmFM8e1Ue74RzcizwaZvKF5fe0M4qYaj56AoiBY7+LSRzpCeTUL1BM1f H6ZjO8WvpyFPyeNmAUvcpYtdBnAWvWMgW7UJyd7zgLr3Hy98ACxmLLkvU PhR1JKWrwoGngSqguHQL9DX9Oj8VYdOwyD/X5Z4pyzBVtF7V9PoybhCH2 g=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:TX0+xR2badLV40eismDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQBkz9N/TndSMSF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CiAAC9Z+9c/49dJa1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUwUBAQsBgQ4vUANpVSAECyiEFINHA45ygld+iESJGoRRgS6BJANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAIXgl4jNgcOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBBBIRChMBATcBDwIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQBDQUIEQmCfAWBHU0DHQECnjQCgTiIX3GBL4J5AQEFhQgNC4IPCYE0AYtTF4FAP4EQR4IXNT6CGoIsJBCCVDKCJo4ShGWILI0LPgkCgg2POoQAllaMdohljSECBAIEBQIOAQEFgVYCLw2BS3AVgyeCD4NwilNygSmKQiuCJQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,529,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="567206999"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 May 2019 05:20:01 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4U5K1kh027413 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2019 05:20:01 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 30 May 2019 00:20:00 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 30 May 2019 01:19:59 -0400
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 May 2019 01:19:58 -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=F/oz8yR1aW6tfoTFHB91aZe5jZtiKsCO1v12UyCZJ48=; b=oOTO8fIxvLTD3UIcB/FcdoQt9/yYbfzQJSNfT/W6pU3y7TgVi0rRKSQpKdnXB2XLYcWkY1kWLJ2RDh5dk58dRmcBwHWTSKtH1ch+JlnXJszGfNeNSJTmMol526zU/0xLwDjvFmG4TZq/Rk3qDRr+EGiLwQIHXWzWEPiuK+00vjc=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.237.19) by BYAPR11MB2599.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.227.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1943.17; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:19:58 +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 15.20.1922.021; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:19:57 +0000
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHVElkN3wUOP6FDGEK2SYOIeSpqpqZ6sCXggAaQhYCAAAp+0IAA36gAgADKtYCAADHPwA==
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 05:19:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB36387A448726F77917B767F2C1180@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF18ct7jj0sSxs02uAvdHSQcm+iUwYXQpjfXU7g28iBLp9dm5Q@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB36382E3C1406B04E95813829C1020@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAF18ct4f7Rgsk9YXWPRAVf7k-iAfNhvR3FJ_YKykrUUwACh-4w@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB36385462A64C3EF6F64464D6C11F0@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5F929FDC-BA59-4733-82BD-F45948DC7110@cisco.com> <CAF18ct5ejob1_o4K2ausoJUwQVZ4JpONbUsJxE4VxHktNm0RHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF18ct5ejob1_o4K2ausoJUwQVZ4JpONbUsJxE4VxHktNm0RHA@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:c0c8:1008::275]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fe569cd8-2fca-41f4-8216-08d6e4be7525
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2599;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2599:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB259925539E8F66479A322F68C1180@BYAPR11MB2599.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00531FAC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(66476007)(66556008)(66446008)(64756008)(68736007)(66946007)(73956011)(76116006)(6116002)(790700001)(6436002)(2906002)(52536014)(229853002)(6636002)(256004)(46003)(476003)(11346002)(446003)(25786009)(33656002)(486006)(6246003)(316002)(74316002)(5660300002)(110136005)(66574012)(86362001)(4326008)(71190400001)(71200400001)(76176011)(6506007)(7696005)(102836004)(7736002)(53546011)(8936002)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(99286004)(55016002)(45080400002)(6306002)(236005)(54896002)(9686003)(53936002)(478600001)(186003)(14454004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2599; 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: U3gLE/K55f4U8AonF14DnFsSuj1UWaJ3aTCtVvyGkirQc6YnItZusakOoVdOVV+CLUT2t807EzitbepWuNvA2pVxqbEOysKKlFz651v32UqIPKY2g3T0Z7mMaQQXZULEy7nS0tIwNUrhYsFtwQ3E+BpQ302Ektk554ZCbUfYz97bDQuxVjp8e4NwlelrtI5boYMz0gA5CkqLraSeXtTf2LJfMaW6lljpy7NV83jObLy2H5f56vQnzqdZPR6GjcDWN1cSN40BwD9av+2WaW08Tbcw4JtmJNhcJVFSO2sNVSzqG/dslQITRaK7b7Jx27EA/wJj4J6mJO0hrBGvODBz6XRvt1DXs8RZ5Aa/xC5wh3LHyOMSav7CuOzUB2bScfkx00rgG4mmjigxR/8JJMPUJFeTi/W+I6mFko9cU3nuRJ4=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB36387A448726F77917B767F2C1180BYAPR11MB3638namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fe569cd8-2fca-41f4-8216-08d6e4be7525
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 May 2019 05:19:57.7656 (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: BYAPR11MB2599
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.21, xch-rcd-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/dcajRWKmSl49HA4mLrH4qtEvvnI>
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: Thu, 30 May 2019 05:20:18 -0000

Uma –

I think I have addressed this in my previous reply on this thread, but just to be sure nothing is left unaddressed…

The bis document is introducing planned restart signaling – so the helper router now has the opportunity to react to topology changes while waiting for the restarting router to come back to life.
We have chosen to leave the decision of when to bring down the adjacency to implementations for a number of reasons:


1.       There is no interoperability issue if different helpers use different policies

2.       Specifying an optimal behavior that applies to all scenarios would be difficult and unnecessarily constraining

3.       With Acee’s feedback that at least some implementations of OSPF GR have chosen not to follow a prescriptive behavior I think we have validation of this choice

   Les


From: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 7:12 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Hi Acee,

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:06 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Les, Uma,

Excuse the top-post but Outlook doesn’t do well with inline response for messages such as this one. AFAIK, no implementation defaulted to aborting graceful restart due to any topology change as recommended by RFC 3623.

Np. For IS-IS/RFC 5306  (base) yes no implementation defaulted to aborting GR due to topology changes. If one wants to capture topology changes  during restart yes they have to do beyond GR(NSR?).
However, in the bis document with planned restart indication this is being introduced (i.e., exiting GR if "any" topology change is detected by the neighbor of restating router).

Thank you!
--
Uma C.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email