IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Second call: A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 04 March 2024 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 EC3F4C151532; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 03:31:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCOl9WAGWRhp; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 03:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 085E3C15106F; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 03:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 424BVgol009054; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:31:42 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92AE46052; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:31:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC10946050; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:31:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:31:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.129.166.107]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 424BVfjx011395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: loa@pi.nu
Cc: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control.all@ietf.org
References: <044701da68da$42740570$c75c1050$@olddog.co.uk> <005201da6e20$8456a290$8d03e7b0$@olddog.co.uk> <cf3e3e17e36ff8e915e7ebe9605e7f94.squirrel@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <cf3e3e17e36ff8e915e7ebe9605e7f94.squirrel@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:31:41 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <006b01da6e27$87e606b0$97b21410$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFsRDHXIF7azqetNy7C4xSPmsuhhQHKLFNTAbX75KOx58ODMA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.129.166.107
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= 20221128; bh=IIL0FLvJdgUa9XnDffFwWIXDWNYBSY8rifxUCKb9Ndk=; b=vNp 0KsjwmeH3Qi07V5s4zE5AuFgWM8DBM8+Gf4SD27/+DjTpWc1ZvI/A3YlLRBcDwCf +6KztQ+9ShsbGf+ksMH38KM4hi7hwDn8lABBXxjfSjfDVvEoGOarIYhlIUP9FdAh Ab0K/L5ouTRzYtMIMeLoZMOspmA5RyY+CPTEU8W5RGKcAa6sDvQ81B/uvHS4AFzA CFNGgptX/+XjEeMDbBQrdjFOtkJf8nxqmtn9bBEXNVcFDirii/v+9yU2VGHF4w/e hA/joGMufWAiyQhyxWdBimUlvmQPPzJkoFlGQXyefzXh3OOPCdk313cKTaT+qoI1 DS0UTzFQ6V2zbPkSFoQ==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28230.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.543-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.543-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28230.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.543400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fE0JoqABJp1fsB4HYR80ZnFPUrVDm6jtyHdfpwipSH6qvcIF1TcLYHMI apaDo9OKwMlmJXkJ4sUc0F+yLZX3TrvGEmcXHXAmDOs94g784gcpA2ExuipmWi3euai/vqCs6bn ve26xmNBCrQBKAFQ4Y3MEqa8NMOkR2kbEHc4C3AdFl9A34VWpsFvQxoz1O6zPtXl9IxEPXOpqjH cG0rAjri+WlCvOWPBC5FcqBUFGIaQMZV3GlWD5jGzBijri5+RVlNbIBwEV/h4utoY2UtFqGF6mj hB+xKtnwcOSnK+uX+JNQHk6Ahy1lwjt4l5TmF6fM10nOFd6RPZj/yGB58mfsLxxsGVcOzSpEEr8 f91QFtFlFSORUVE4Xkn2LCKvldPV2w59RAnF8ZOeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47hTZDO rzlZ+cHQdJ7XfU86e4kYXbobxJbKl/MtrTwS4UOT7e2b2IXKD4iJDJ9hLSsmT8HsCPY7uelgb80 6pV9lZVJ7tc98LFuo=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/EQZvtObM5jZxmVdslyR2YpBb2vI>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Second call: A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:31:51 -0000

Thanks, Loa.

> I read the original mail :), but I did not respond :(.

You are forgiven.

> The reason is that I did not understand the implications of the protocol
> fix and the scoping alternatives.
>
> Regardless of which alternative we choose, we will have the document back
> to the working group for fixing and a new WGLC, right? At least the
> working group needs to have a chance to say what it thinks about the fix.
>
> That scenario is right and the protocol fix is reasonably easy, I think
> that the first alternative is the most attractive.

So, the reason for my question ("does anyone care?") is that it is important
to understand whether we even need to consider the fix before working out
the fix.
Answers might be:
- No one cares
    - Abandon the work (subject to formal call on list)
- People care about P2P and P2MP but not MP2P and MP2MP
    - Rescope the work (subject to formal call on the list)
- People care about MP2P and/or MP2MP
    - Bring the draft back to the WG and develop the fix (and then do WG
last call)

The third of these would (of course?) require someone to do the work!

Cheers,
Adrian




> Hi,
>
> Resending this because I am hearing silence and that could mean:
> - no one cares
> - no one read the original email
>
> A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 26 February 2024 17:36
> To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] A question about draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control
>
> Hi WG,
>
> While talking about draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl and
> draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control with Stewart, and resulting from SEC ART
> review
> of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control by Charlie Kaufman, we discovered that
> there
> is a small hole in the control protocol arising in MP2P LSPs when one of
> the
> senders crashes and restarts.
>
> There are two possible approaches to solving this:
> 1. introduce a protocol fix
> 2. scope the utility of the control protocol draft to p2p and p2mp only
>
> But, before going there, we are interested to know whether anyone cares
> about this control protocol. Has anyone implemented it? Does anyone plan
> to
> implement it?
>
> Thanks for any answers.
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email