[mpls] Comment on draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC6811E8177 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxcUcpddlAzT for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78DE11E8141 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:51:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=933; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383810686; x=1385020286; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=y1ap8IrXnxJDv/IhC1IjZA0+dkX+SSVt3ui3ss8KI50=; b=iZGXwleESqTmvTr5I2aIgLE896488oxwAVcfmFnE9ENmDDk+9d0u80qx sbJ+5BrNjh8Y6m5mtLjtt5XyddFRR+/CUjGGiwuXqcISQHTr4CAwheZkI maHsZeHyb8XJvwAnrpgBEq6irdw5qWkBG4M2wl1sf82f2kQrtVOiein6o A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcGAAtFe1KtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgmYhgQu/DIEjFm0HgiUBAQEDATo/BQ0BKhRCJgEEDg0Th2AGAb4FjgeBITGDJ4EQA6oWgyaCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,650,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="281805290"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2013 07:51:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA77pPV9011631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:51:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:51:24 -0600
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: "draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection@tools.ietf.org" <draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comment on draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection
Thread-Index: Ac7bieAe3j4zI+A+Rcq0NrmUMXL15g==
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:51:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941DEDE38F@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.115.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Comment on draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:51:31 -0000

Hi Authors,

I didn't get a chance to comment on your draft at the WG session today, so sending to the list. My concern is similar to what Greg Mirsky stated. Simply running 2 independent BFD sessions (as described in the slides) will have issues.

> 3.  Ingress Failure Detection
> 
>   Exactly how the failure of the ingress (e.g.  R1 in Figure 1) is
>   detected is out of scope for this document.

I believe, at least, definition of the "failure" should be defined in the draft. Without it, it can be interpreted by readers as complete node outage, outage of all involved links, outage of just primary-backup link, or even something else. And without defining what the "failure" is, it's difficult to figure out the right techniques to detect the failure. And that can easily result in deviating detection implementations for described solution to not kick off in expected manner.

-Nobo