Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 29 September 2015 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522021B40ED; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 qm9JK43_yqVM; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B86911B40EE; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t8TECrAL020175 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:12:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "IJsbrand Wijnands" <ice@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:12:52 -0500
Message-ID: <8E9D12B2-948B-4B32-9EF5-9220B079B4B2@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB797CE4-1BB2-4B63-AEA7-96F83AB43183@cisco.com>
References: <20150914220331.5981.89192.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7DD892A2-37EF-435E-A8F5-9167436DA808@cisco.com> <64A18C22-B877-40A1-9C08-FFA3291658B1@nostrum.com> <702FC7E4-4AEB-48EE-8053-066506130C7C@cisco.com> <24CFBE30-9AD0-4CFA-9353-3E0C43A474F7@nostrum.com> <BB797CE4-1BB2-4B63-AEA7-96F83AB43183@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/2t2mZpg7hLXabkY6dsma45j1QTs>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.ad@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:13:00 -0000

On 29 Sep 2015, at 3:29, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> How about this:
>
> "If the operator is not concerned with the tLDP session flapping 
> and/or other procedures are in place to avoid this altogether, there 
> is no need to apply the delay."

That works for me. Thanks!

Ben.

>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
>
>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:47, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:40, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
>>
>>> -- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
>>>>>> Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it 
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> justify a MUST?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, its really an implementation choice to save resources being 
>>>>> using in deleting and re-creating the tLDP session. If the 
>>>>> implementation has means to deal with this or has other mechanism 
>>>>> to solve this problem, that is fine too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, A few words to that effect might be helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, in that section I’m already making the reader aware of the 
>>> fact that a tLDP session may be flapping due to link flapping, and 
>>> what solution can be applied to mitigate it. I don’t think more 
>>> words are necessary here. Are you ok if we keep it like it is?
>>
>> I meant a few words to explain why this is not a MUST, not the fact 
>> that the sessions may flap. For example something to the effect of 
>> "However, an implementation might have other mechanisms to prevent 
>> flapping, in which case the delay might not be needed."