Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte

Alexander Okonnikov <> Tue, 07 May 2019 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6AF120272; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rbgCLvAfGE9; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743D71202CE; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 132so7841145ljj.4; Tue, 07 May 2019 13:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7CR4h0mDiSrYNFQFCEN1b5quCHk3QcPVgY4cHPwJnyA=; b=Vp1/ESDV0+zLNMw9h2q5Amk7mYyRz6wKroQf9geZlS82udwg8xc4FacJJkLkPZxT8v Nd4gOa9Kz6RDCIinyHqNMXKZIwaOP+uQYefZAC28FjW1/sxzVuRaU4Yzo5SxtXk203wj qQD8OdU/uqBqJVk7NEMD9vN7Vt2i+3ox9XJoghAdvOwfKntdycmOf8OEBlNj67oX5um8 raUUYja7Nyx7EFvek0pBFJBWqb0bNdI+5oSGNKx4OMQYwOoyo8jT5LwShy7f9JF8xOnx XIPZXm+Kv31e0l7lc60ahYh4U+hpnCucx6wf/ZblwWMExSmlWYiPOf8Tz1FmTzpYa6VF 4jtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7CR4h0mDiSrYNFQFCEN1b5quCHk3QcPVgY4cHPwJnyA=; b=P8SdrZlmU/XXSn3WGB7es694hxQjF3NP86YjqfzMtNldseqYzyfNo+1ViI/ypUnftr 4wcDtWRKV1YwKUCKMKiVl/wzHu8dCynftB3bUDIxUfatWZ4XvwdPOlEgIBPfxaUJIq1v tTV5vwyOUTjXflXZyyvLD02ArCV2yh0GTdnPeY3UKHydZRsG/HkB+sJj6UfEHNuYIcfc SDNTBXROWmI6A9ArF7nqpXktTzTMWUPLxbNetqY9KL9rjZYnpy3GqFrOYwD7JmMM8T+i QQ8pQnVG2Rr8gck7gioLYL1AOUpqcm0uuU1/UGDdcp+++NehHYrvSCw3OGH20ZBoLuAb M/vw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUPYfv+ikrkqduZiaSLp4SeTqu0jlS+EgrGIg/FpcwpwqBa4yhB uERawkIcl38IycKRCy/5YF0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhwA4MsSnRXi/TgCHvmQWck9ZGD5D5Vd3FbeO+MM4z5BahbTRqkE0GyautEIDrHuDLm71+sg==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4743:: with SMTP id u64mr6531550lja.57.1557262489439; Tue, 07 May 2019 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id v20sm1905972lfe.11.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 May 2019 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alexander Okonnikov <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_58D29F64-0CE5-44B3-9401-3798FE14B54D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 23:54:47 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Markus Jork <>
References: <LEJPR01MB0377540FAEC1EE9448740E78983A0@LEJPR01MB0377.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 20:54:58 -0000

Hi authors,

As far as Summary FRR LSPs are not being signaled via Path messages over bypass tunnel after failure, information on head-ends about actual path MTU of protected LSPs can be corrupted. For example, path MTU of protected LSP is 1500 bytes (provided that ADSPEC is used), and path MTU of bypass tunnel is, for example, 1500 bytes. As far as Path messages for protected LSPs are not being sent over bypass tunnel, MP will use ADSPEC received in Path messages of those protected LSPs previoulsy (before they have been rerouted onto bypass tunnel), i.e. 1500 bytes in place of 1496 bytes. To avoid this problem PLR would have to signal path MTU of its bypass tunnel in B-SFRR-Active object (alternatively, MP could inherit this value from ADSPEC of PSB of the bypass tunnel), and 2) MP would have to choose minimal of MTU values from ADSPEC objects while merging Summary FRR protected LSP. But, even in this case MP will have to generate trigger Path messages (with updated ADSPEC) for protected LSPs and then, after receiving Resv messages with updated FLOWSPEC, send them to PLR. I.e. summary refresh in MP->PLR direction with high probability will be inapplicable, due to trigger messages.


> 7 мая 2019 г., в 23:46, Markus Jork <> написал(а):
> As a co-author,  I believe this document is ready for publication.
> -Markus
>> On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:33 AM, <> wrote:
>> Working Group,
>> This mail initiates the two weeks working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review.
>> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ( <>), not later than 17th of May.
>> There is one IPR disclosure against draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
>> This working group last call ends May 17th, 2019 (there is at least in some countries a public holiday this week, therefore the call is a bit longer than usual).
>> Best regards
>> Nic
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list