Re: [mpls] progressing draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 17 September 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 9B3C31A870F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 3QprF_sZN3MZ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 056C51A1AA6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2127 invoked by uid 0); 17 Sep 2015 15:21:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2015 15:21:38 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id JMMQ1r01X2SSUrH01MMU9s; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:21:37 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=GpXRpCFC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=ff-B7xzCdYMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=osuDTejiygZ2wiPNmqQA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=IJ7b/Om51twWdT6k+i45E0aDo/2x1htVPNC4HPlswFI=; b=O9tbXEkosJpRt0NEBV4gS3Vh0x4WLoYREPcteMM5rMQHveTRK8aOdJPqXdOelelkS4IP1drPdWpfmSXzi2hKkl8DSGE1KRMN3RVjR5jOSlzOHPX2D1/8we3eplQPTVHh;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:57216 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Zcb01-0002Uc-U6; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:21:26 -0600
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte@ietf.org
References: <55FA9994.5000304@pi.nu>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55FADA66.4080709@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:21:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55FA9994.5000304@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/JTM31jVB3QuucG5nG2NI8dvc2T0>
Cc: "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <teas-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] progressing draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:21:41 -0000

I have some comments on the proposed mechanism (I have no opinion on
utility or likely implementation):

1. WRT SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object

RSVP object space is a pretty scarce resource and it seems we have a
number of existing objects that could be reused to support transport of
the required information.  Some candidates include: the Association
object with a new association type; or perhaps the PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE
Object with a new C-type.

2. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects

While RFC4090 makes use of RRO carried information, it does so without
changing the RRO format.  (At the time, I recall some used this as
justification for RRO usage vs introducing new formats.)  The new SOs
introduce new information and don't seem to be particularly linked to
normal RRO operation -- and more significantly really defining new
transit-node to transit-node signaling semantics:

   The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message
   RECORD_ROUTE object ...

   The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by signalling a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage
   RECORD_ROUTE object.

IMO this usage of RRO is really wrong (and is easily broken by
application of RRO policies).  I think extending an existing object
class is a better approach. Extending one of the existing FRR objects
would probably be cleanest, but think the authors should consider and
propose their preference.

Lou

On 9/17/2015 6:44 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Groups,
>
> The mpls and teas working group chairs discussed the home working
> group for draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte. Since the is entirely
> the choice fell on the mpls working group. We also decided to keep
> the teas wg in the loop.
>
> We have just initiated the mpls review team (MPLS-RT) review if this
> draft. This review is focused on if we want to accept the document as
> a working group draft, and if it is in shape for us to do so.
>
> The MPLS-RT reviewers are picked by the mpls chair that will shepherd
> the document.
>
> This also mean that this is a good time for anyone, from both working
> groups, to review the document. Please send your reviews to the mpls
> working group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
>
> /Loa
>