Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 10 May 2017 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 A7B2E12EAA9; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 lllpogR1dOFy; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 090C6128AB0; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id e65so8022369ita.1; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=TEdy2bHd6L1ahTmEy06UhWRMlZCCotYRPJMjLgjKEJo=; b=UaenTSAALvQUyF3UJBal2YaGaapBUJlfECkV3jsw3nc1hfq9P4a2ZxKl5SfXr2gXON kDHnT5V0xiRVuGDKUoiQUG9kE0t+QUk4tlJYfZSAkzzLq6C+DoS7s8L0bXNsnzAEZash abWmB7JLGEemrnvVG6w76A3JYpfSXshfklYlIzhVtOke0kFlHo238YdKB7sZef0KLWIy S1QoxeEhrgNAQZAx2d0sTOE/dKSz1YDGDNpaMBpzcwGQ5JBqAq7zcfB6I2ONnXwFk0aC 1yFY1E9N3SCQFHsSJA6fOem/qVwGSFoAQfCdxCIVKjqnFA4w+CnNWQANd/fwzgpdgsMH OWpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TEdy2bHd6L1ahTmEy06UhWRMlZCCotYRPJMjLgjKEJo=; b=QUVu4Cgim5lNObwoiU30/bHXMPN+XcUAMgzskXLKK9qBg+a24uPGOnSGt6pcnzX5yS hJnKzE/MMV79RYKCgzb6XkZU4H2gTSA6wXwQtxlH69eLVGAbEQv2BTWDzrIWHiLev7qN jW5ngOQ/fs/SAyasL3u4L6ZvjoASOtGK+UfQ/2Fp83lXYuJJ69EF8Pgr0rgbzjq0rT7H uPnNmAT3xtyfvI5orVeAKhidPndvL4PtkDcSd0OI7yXYFph5uMTIfKNYw7ZIs7/wYXob RM2hSelp8IdebQ6pkIQMYO58kA1ZKpk1R7My3lEaUmxQ6CI7pjyb6q2sFhRa18Oa6Xze c9OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcC6eNm4zADE5aFBEDPSPHWEKdt3ufQL22adOWOoOt7txkwuIrzl gZKM/TWJb7kfEBkVdN2To0Kw5AHAX0Oot8w=
X-Received: by 10.36.125.197 with SMTP id b188mr7099939itc.59.1494445320238; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=Bb2v6u9KtK7HpkHb1shS8WOWHBmJk5su0BU1PrJUiMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149430058880.24107.8628199428997673992.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVA3G8eucX2Q0=bHGdr+awmiXAd44BOMkdOmTQkeA6aYQ@mail.gmail.com> <1C12E162-6B5C-4EF2-A3CB-3621C72BCFE9@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXgfmL7+Bx-KxFcm=3tTtsCALmRhrhyX=uqF8kuDFw2nw@mail.gmail.com> <F3C093E0-FE4E-41C0-B9EB-0CA1CB52DBE7@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmX6GEDhD-A-DkLdABepOzeEqFB4DEKh+JKYyhz27O8J=A@mail.gmail.com> <9D886964-6C21-427C-8733-7731D5A996D3@cisco.com> <CA+b+ER=Bb2v6u9KtK7HpkHb1shS8WOWHBmJk5su0BU1PrJUiMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:41:59 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rgwSCYFZFs41rD-zSR4UiCp2kpA
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERm6Q-s1umcPa-WkPpBJw+arMpPp29=5_qZvu=yCpgZfPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114043b0731de7054f30aa83
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YIIqxqPN3HKdIp-3s1vYf92CCFM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 10 May 2017 19:42:03 -0000

Never mind .. I guess you made it up from "Target FEC Stack" :)



On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Sorry what is "TFS" ?
>
> RFC 7110 does not even use such abbreviation neither do
> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless
> about it.
>
> Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :)
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated through a label stack.
>> But RFC 7110 does not use numeric label values, it uses TFSs. That does not
>> create any additional state. E.g.,: https://www.ietf.org/ma
>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg16091.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> — Carlos.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 9, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Hi Carlos,
>> I probably would characterize anything that starts with Why not as a
>> technical comment but rather as a question.
>> According to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, "In the MPLS
>> dataplane,the SR header is instantiated through a label stack".
>> At the same time, one of advantages of SR is that "per-flow state only
>> [maintained] at the ingress node to the SR domain".
>> Thus, for the case of monitoring unidirectional SR tunnels, I consider
>> that there's no need to create any additional state on the egress node.
>> Of course, if there were bidirectional SR tunnels, then control of the
>> reverse direction of the BFD session would not require use of the Return
>> Path sub-TLV.
>> As for LSP-Ping, I just propose that the Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel
>> sub-TLV MAY be used Reply Path TLV defined in RFC 7110. I viewed the
>> proposal as invitation to technical discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Greg!
>>>
>>> Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems
>>> quite similar to the text removed at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
>>> ?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt, then the complete set of
>>> outstanding technical comments that triggered the removal of that text from
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt might peek your interest :-)
>>>
>>> One that I recall is: why use label values when every other return-path
>>> sub-TLV for BFD and for LSP-Ping, including draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed,
>>> uses TFSs?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> — Carlos.
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Carlos,
>>> I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear
>>> technical comments to the proposed solution.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>>> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised and
>>>> comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N
>>>> (with N < 5) apply to your new draft.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of those: https://www.ietf.org/ma
>>>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list archive shows a
>>>> few more. The copy/paste did not address the comments.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> — Carlos.
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> perhaps this new draft may is of interest to you.
>>>> Your comments, suggestions are most welcome and greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>;
>>>> Date: Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>> To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Name:           draft-mirsky-spring-bfd
>>>> Revision:       00
>>>> Title:          Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment
>>>> Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
>>>> Document date:  2017-05-08
>>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>>> Pages:          7
>>>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
>>>> drafts/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>>> doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/
>>>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>>> doc/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source
>>>>    routing.  It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
>>>>    (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane.  A segment is
>>>>    encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded
>>>>    as a stack of labels.  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
>>>>    expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems.  This document
>>>>    defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control
>>>>    path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing
>>>>    network over MPLS dataplane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>