Re: [mpls] LC comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-02
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 24 July 2011 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 C611321F899D for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oatjZ8Af+vXJ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E66621F88B7 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so3235986vxi.31 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NsXnEuW8pvxP+/sx8iadfrR1Gd2fS/cQukoUMxkh3r8=; b=a8SeXnJOU+Uqg5hiUVA+8nO9Q6LQVRo6BrgA47oejVcdmdv1eGGTySThJ4Z2AQZ1gS VRTw6kD5C+PgGmeYWEPv8iePTFu+CWWwg5fH3TNgO4FxOb5rYR1gMQydsbqwqXi3EUbf a8iPD55UObF7mzRxbMqB07faobo/54MngxXsk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.156.3 with SMTP id wa3mr3858052vdb.24.1311537018271; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.160.228 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:50:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUeyS+GsFgG5jp9q2J+avqjKVOsrQQbwVTJrNOSWqyc5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53aee24157a1c04a8d6021a"
Cc: BUSI ITALO <italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com>, "wu.bo@zte.com.cn" <wu.bo@zte.com.cn>, "Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.bitar@verizon.com>, "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" <msiva@cisco.com>, David Ward <dward@juniper.net>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] LC comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-02
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: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:50:21 -0000
Dear Authors and All, please find my comments to the latest version: - Introduction Is LI/LB mechanism applicable to MPLS-TP Sections? - Introduction RE: LI/LB signaling methods in-band and LSP Ping are discussed as opposites. Isn’t LSP Ping an in-band methods too? - Section 3.5 Each individual LI/LB Request can carry or not to carry Authentication TLV? LSP Ping MPLS-TP OAM Configuration does not control whether LI/LB session Authenticated or not. - Section 4. What is the rationale to allow use of different methods to do LI/LB in one session? I think that model of LI/LB session with predefined parameters, e.g. Authentication, might be even duration, and etc. will be useful and beneficial. - Section 4.3 Control over the Loopback mode is done entirely based on the TTL value. I think this is too weak and can be strengthen by combining with match to a destination MIP ID. I suggest to make use of destination MIP ID mandatory for LB request. Then we can use Cause code 1 “Fail to match target MIP/MEP ID” in NACK. Thus Section 6.1 General Procedures will be modified too. - Sections 6.3 and further logically are based on Section 6.2 and should be enumerated 6.2.1, 6.2.2, … - Section 6.3 bullet 2 refers to source MEP ID but none of presented formats or previous descriptions mentions use of Source MEP ID in Lock Request in-band encapsulation. - Same issue with 6.3.b – Target MEP ID. - MEP-ID and MEP-A might be confusing. Suggest to use “MEP ID” and “MEP-A” to differentiate type of identifier and node specified. - Section 6.3 refers to an example “the OAM traffic, e.g. cv and cc packets” I think that more likely that DM and LM packets will be sent under LI/LB. - Section 7 I think that order in which Authentication is used is not adequate for procedures like LI/LB that can severely affect services. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Regards, Greg On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > At 04:52 PM 6/7/2011, Gregory Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Sami, > thank you for your response. Please find my notes below and in-lined with > tag GIM>>: > > second paragraph of Introduction refers to use of LSP-Ping "either over > GACh or using native IP addressing". I think that this is in reference to > different encapsulations of LSP-Ping and the text might benefit from the > clarification and note that with either type of encapsulation an LSP-Ping is > always transported in-band over MPLS-TP network. Considering that > characterizing G-ACh encapsulation as exclusively "in-band option" for LI-LB > transport might be misleading. Perhaps it can be referred as "G-ACh option". > > > Sami: Agreed, will clarify the text to align more with the on-demand-cv > draft that allows LSP Ping to be G-ACH encaped with or without IP address. > > > > Section 3.3 What is application of Informational Return Code? > > > Sami: No application so far. > > > > Section 3.5 Which Operation and Return Code values should be used when > negotiating CHAP Authentication? > > > Sami: We will use Request and Response messages with the same operation > being authenticated, return codes will reflect authentication > success/failures in case we get one. > > > > section 3.6.2 states that "only LI-LB response TLV might be present in > LSP Ping Echo request message". I think it is a typo and this clarification > is in regard to LSP Ping Echo reply message, not request. > > > Sami: Will address. > > > > - In 6.3.g it might be "back to MEP-A' in place of "back to A" to be > consistent with terminology used. > > > Sami: Will address. > > > > I find draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02 expired and IANA's ACH TLV > Registry is empty. The document doesn't request IANA allocation of ACH TLV > types for Source MEP-ID, Destination MEP-ID, Destination MIP-ID, and > Authentication. How these ACH TLV types will be defined? > > > Sami: Will get rid of the MEP-IDs and use source/tgt identifiers defined in > the on-demand-cv draft. > > > > Reference 9 is missing mention of RFC 1334. > > > Sami: Will add. > > Thanks, > > Sami > > > Regards, > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* mpls-bounces@ietf.org [ mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Sami Boutros > *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2011 10:16 PM > *To:* Greg Mirsky; Siva Sivabalan(msiva); Rahul Aggarwal; > martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com; dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn; > swallow@cisco.com; David Ward; stbryant@cisco.com; cpignata@cisco.com; > Bitar, Nabil N; BUSI ITALO; LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN); > laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com; wu.bo@zte.com.cn; > yang_jian@zte.com.cn; mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] LC comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 > > Hi Greg, > > Here are responses to your comments please let us know if you are OK with > the Responses. > > > - section 3.2 I think that there are mandatory TLVs for LI-LB and > optional. Mandatory TLV for LI might be Source MEP-ID, Destination MEP-ID, > while for LB Source MEP-ID and MIP-ID. Optional, e.g. Authentication TLV. > > > Response-1: Correct. > GIM>> I don't find Source and Destination MEP-ID, MIP-ID TLVs being > discussed or referenced even though section 6.3 refers to validation of > Source and Destination/target MEP-IDs. > > > - section 3.3.5 describes Return Code in Return TLV for LSP-ping option > of LI-LB signaling. For in-band option Return Code has different values and > values listed in this section are for field Cause Code. I think it would be > beneficial to have some uniformity across LI-LB signalling options and in > Return TLV have both Return Code and Cause Code fields with values identical > for in-band and LSP-Ping options. > > > Response-2: Addressed in latest version -02 where we made this section > shared by both in-Band and LSP-Ping, we as well limited the # of TLVs used > by LSP Ping. > GIM>> Great > > > - section 3.3.6 defines Authentication TLV for LSP-Ping option. > Authentication of LB request but in-band option doesn't have provision to > indicate that Authentication is in use. I propose to allocate MSB of > Reserved field as Authentication flag. > > > Response-3: Addressed in latest version -02 by making authentication TLV > common to both in-band and LSP Ping. > GIM>> Agree > > > - section 6.3 mentions that Authentication may be used both in Lock > request and Lock response. I think that if Authentication was present in > Lock request and accepted by remote MEP, then Lock response must have > Authentication. Similar is applicable to use of Authentication in Unlock > request/response, and Setting/Removing LB . > > > Response-4: We described authentication procedures in more details in > section 3.5 of latest draft version, please have a look to see if it > addresses your concern. > GIM>> I was thinking of allocating an Authnetication (A) flag from > Reserved field to indicate whether Authentication is in use for given LB and > LI. Note, that setting of A flag on LI Lock request or LB Set request > defines use of Authentication not only in corresponding replies but in > Unlock/Unset as well. > > > - section 6.5.b I think that there's no guarantee that sender of LI > request will not generate false positive after remote MEP locks the LSP. > Perhaps, if proactive OAM is enabled, the remote MEP should send LI reply > but it might stop sending OAM messages after 3*TxPeriod interval. > > > Response-5: Addressed in section 6.3 last paragraph > > MEP-D will lock the LSP, resulting in that all traffic from D to A, > including all OAM traffic, stops. > > a. MEP-A will detect a discontinuation in the OAM traffic, e.g. cv and cc > packets, but since it has been informed that the LSP will be locked it will > take no action(s). > b. When MEP-A receives the LI ACK, MEP-A discontinues sending other OAM > traffic, e.g. cv and cc packets. MEP-D will detect this, but since it is in > Locked state it will take no action. > GIM>> Thank you. > > Thanks, > > Sami > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >