Re: [Lsvr] WGLC for draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc-01 (to end February 19, 2021)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 06 February 2021 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4113A2BC1; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 12:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Z8oCKhTLRxoU; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19CBA3A2BC0; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1l8UKH-0003Mb-5H; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 20:37:05 +0000
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:37:04 -0800
Message-ID: <m2a6shue4v.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>, "lsvr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsvr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLF-QNXajwGebu+aV8zJ2t2CeOe2ikD4cepHuN+NMP6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AM0PR07MB63861CBCCDA4761A07B86DD3E0B39@AM0PR07MB6386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAHw9_iLF-QNXajwGebu+aV8zJ2t2CeOe2ikD4cepHuN+NMP6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/6_Hu8zQ_nFRg5gIcwrvh5N30cS8>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] WGLC for draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc-01 (to end February 19, 2021)
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 20:37:12 -0000

> <no hats>

in the weather you're having?

> I'm part of the IDR Autoconf design team, and, in my personal opinion,
> L3DL/L3DL-ULPC is the most promising solution for our requirements.

personally, i would hack it a bit differently for that target.  but
that's in another galaxy far away.

> As we get more deployment experience / fully explore the problem space
> we may need a -bis / extensions / similar

no extra charge

> I personally believe that it makes sense to have a registry for the
> Attribute List ("a, possibly null, set of sub-TLVs describing the
> configuration attributes of the specific upper layer protocol."), and
> that this might need to be a larger code space than a single octet;

<pedantry>
i presume you mean for attributes, not for the list.

given wg support, i do not have a big objection to s/octet/16 bits/

> there are a number of use case/deployment scenarios.  Some set of
> people will want to configure their own "meanings" for attributes
> before deploying devices, but some set of people would like to rely on
> some well known (e.g: "I'm at Stage2 in a Clos fabric", "I'm a fabric
> egress node", "I'm an edge type node") attributes so that they can do
> less manual bootstrapping.

as long as i do not have to be in, or at least not listen to, the wg
that decides and forever extends the well-known attribute list.

> I also think that a larger (16 bit) code space would be better (partly
> because of the above) - as a bikeshedding opportunity, a registry with
> 1-1024 as RFC Required, 1025-2048 as Spec, 2048-4096 as FCFS, and
> 4096-65535 as Private Use / whatever seems good to me.  If we stick
> with 8 bit, I still think it is worth making the first 32 codepoints
> be well-know/registered and people define the meaning for the rest to
> mean whatever they want on their network.

that is a bit complex for my taste; but it does solve some traditional
messes.  presuming we're good at guessing the boundaries.

and "1025-2048 as Spec" scares me.  i hope you are not suggesting we go
down the rabbit hole of selecting a set of well-known values in *this*
draft.  i can hear it now, "my clos uses whitworth bolts."

> Whatever the case, I support this - it is an important and useful
> document.

thanks

> Q1: "Otherwise a direct one hop session is used.  the BGP session to a
>    loopback will forward to the peer's address which was marked as
>    Primary in the L3DL Encapsulation Flags, iff it is in a subnet
>    which is shared with both BGP speakers."
> I'm unclear if the 'iff' is just a typo, or if it short for "if and
> only if".

you want well-known attributes; i want to use well-known notation :)

> Also a nit on 'the BGP session' - this is fragment or needs an upper
> case 'T'

thx

> 1: I think that s/upper layer/upper-layer/g
> 2: s/IP layer 3/IP Layer-3/g

that could be either way.  normally, i would let the rfc editor hack.
no matter what i choose, rfced seems to go the other way.

> 3: "ULPC Type: An integer denoting the type of the uper layer
> protocol" - uper is a typo.

whoops

> 4: "it might be a simple MD5 key (see [RFC2385]), the name of a key
> chain a KARP database" - "chain *in* a KARP"

ibid

thanks!

randy