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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 1EFF23A0B67; Wed, 6 May 2020 09:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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
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 c_ZfvOdmUscT; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D5C3A08CB; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3600; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1588780799; x=1589990399; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JqSc6XF7pFZlXXgurIO2E9w4ghmaPk+vME7dscpoFAc=; b=kWsjI0FcvwkBJQYza1TI7/TA65vWwnc54zP9q2td+9gmv2WAsHQQOKQx o6Px+10/KmgnBKgpqMN6aRueHBjgL+WncxhTrAdDIPaeRc78b15Us5n6B rxQq5ufCdAKcOpWZwsqfteFO9H6Hy9UbNsw93nQ8qiW/zLqydGQ8WQzur E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DmAACb3rJe/xbLJq1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgTYEAQELAYNsIBKETYkBh2AtmXeBZwsBAQEOLwQBAYREAoI?= =?us-ascii?q?lNwYOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYVihXEBAQEBAgEjFUEQCxgCAhEVAgJXBg0?= =?us-ascii?q?IAQGDIoJdILNQdoEyhVCDPoFAgQ4qAYxdgUE/gRABJ4JpPoQHH2eCU4JgBJk?= =?us-ascii?q?KmUeCUoJwlSAGHYJbiGGEVCeMaa1bgWgjgVYzGggbFYMlTxgNnww/A2cCBgg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMJkAKCRAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,359,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="25882149"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 May 2020 15:59:56 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 046Fxsgv001506; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:59:55 GMT
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
References: <158867189453.14412.14632358918213286203@ietfa.amsl.com> <8dd49248-84bd-a546-8fee-767ab75a182a@cisco.com> <CAB75xn65wcH23q1XO7EtONc7C38dyu43pMiWb0KoZspo7jdKmg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <bc621daf-52b5-02b5-126a-84267b6cf548@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 17:59:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn65wcH23q1XO7EtONc7C38dyu43pMiWb0KoZspo7jdKmg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wKE8T3oE3-fVGCTC9nJ6weUagI4>
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 16:00:02 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

please see inline:

On 06/05/2020 17:40, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> 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.

yes, the absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements only indicates that a node 
does not support advertisement of (b).

It can not be interpreted that (b) is not supported.  Old nodes that do 
not advertise ERLD-MSD can not be assumed not to support non-zero ERLD.

The "only" is there to express the above.

> 
>>>
>>>      *  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.

well, if the node does not support ELC, then ERLD value is irrelevant. 
It's like having a speed limit for a road with no entry.

But that is something that does not belong to protocol drafts.

thanks,
Peter


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