Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com> Tue, 15 September 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sriganeshkini@gmail.com>
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 3A5BD1A1B7D for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 M4uPaIxezmO0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 790541A1B73 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so204832282ioi.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XkxE9FSqZ0Dvug/4THnCkKlnt50MG+bS1LewTMI91Lc=; b=IsgH9Pr1vphJB+cBdB8H1iWSpyGPr2WGsHYIAf+kXbd2qDlWJ194JTF/R8LJEGffcF fENPN72e+MK6wihRelpjUp6MBTVR8c0PxdBmO+K/GV5Biqvb+S2sntQCAxIjay9a0NZh XeFkE+Ka3OsoVp7avymU+At31B/D4cmGv3pNWROJNDYEolhhsZE1k0Sjd6Ft8uOm+L9o hAtGkmgdYuVQHtXex3SuRBjs7oLDdsfsWry1th5SztgSc5FAJBKJJaTgHvAzEWRq6A9i fqHO40dVerJjey+Skx8R/dcqaOk675nlgfnOFPvaByQljIqZ0q3V5/pugJN7YQpQ7Kwz O42A==
X-Received: by 10.107.7.231 with SMTP id g100mr35241950ioi.81.1442333860740; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.47.205 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55F14EE5.3000207@pi.nu>
References: <5592C145.70501@pi.nu> <95453A37E413464E93B5ABC0F8164C4D14C07128@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <CABRz93X3NTbXm4ZLfzBA+Or1QyDt5sY_6GzPAaZc9YcD8MP7ow@mail.gmail.com> <55F14EE5.3000207@pi.nu>
From: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:11 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EosPr68UqrGVhihcSwA2Vtn_UG4
Message-ID: <CAOndX-vq7bExTwXpqWftAcUZBeYAKdnQPM631NpCQUazSoZjjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8b906ac8b5051fcb85bd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/kJvm-iHWY3aKoeYKlnf1NWhrEjU>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-kompella-mpls-larp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kompella-mpls-larp@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp
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: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:17:44 -0000

Loa,

I am fine with the resolutions in -04 except for one, for which I would
like the guidance of the WG chairs. As stated in the abstract, this draft
is providing a solution as a component of the MPLS Fabric architecture
which will be defined in the yet to be published draft [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC].
Shouldn't the order of WG acceptance be architecture first and then
specific solutions?

Thanks
Sri

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha
>
> Can each of you confirm to me that your MPLS-RT review comments has been
> satisfactorily addressed.
>
> I will start the working group adoption poll as soon as I have
> your¨resonses,
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2015-09-08 21:25, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thanks all again for your comments.
>>
>> I've just posted a new version incorporating all your feedback.  There
>> is new text to clarify some points, and the text on unsolicited ARP and
>> Async operation have been merged.  The one thing left to do is to write
>> the MPLS Fabric document -- work has started here.
>>
>> Kireeti.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Sriganesh Kini
>> <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com <mailto:sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     This is the MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp -
>>
>>     The document is coherent.
>>
>>     Regarding whether it is useful (i.e., is it likely to be actually
>>     useful in operational networks), the yet to do be defined reference
>>     [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] would be needed before commenting on it. Also if
>>     any host NIC vendors can chime in or any evidence of host operating
>>     systems that plan to support this is present, it will help to answer
>>     this question. I don't see any technical reason why MPLS shouldn't
>>     be useful in DC networks.
>>
>>     The document is technically sound for most parts, but as sec 4
>>     points out there are a number of issues still left. I would add a
>>     couple issues -
>>              1.      The restarts should address control-plane restart
>>     as well. Though there is no session between server and client, the
>>     action (if any) to be performed when control-plane restarts should
>>     be specified.
>>              2.      If a LSR (L-ARP server) goes down, then there
>>     should be a proposed resiliency mechanism (e.g. using BFD).
>>
>>     Other comments:
>>              1.      It would be very useful to list the use-cases where
>>     a host wants to participate in the fabric through a simpler
>>     mechanism than RSVP-TE UNI. Additionally, even though label
>>     distribution itself may become simpler using ARP, doesn't the host
>>     have to do other MPLS OAM functionality? Some discussion of this
>>     topic is needed.
>>              2.      Section 3.4 "... presence of a complex
>>     topology...". Which topology is this referring to ? Is it the
>>     underlying ethernet network topology ? Pls state it explicitly and
>>     also why it would cause a problem to LARP.
>>
>>     Nits:
>>              1.      Section 1, page 1 s/Centre/Center
>>              2.      The node 'T' should be shown in the MPLS Fabric of
>>     Fig 1.
>>              3.      Missing reference [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC]
>>              4.      Sec 3.4 "Seamless MPLS" reference is missing.
>>
>>     Since [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] seems to the primary driver for this
>>     document, it would be better to consider this for a WG document
>>     after that document is published.
>>
>>     - Sri
>>     ________________________________________
>>     From: Loa Andersson [loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>]
>>     Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:18 AM
>>     To: Lucy yong; Kamran Raza (skraza); Sriganesh Kini; Aissaoui,
>>     Mustapha (Mustapha); draft-kompella-mpls-larp@tools.ietf.org
>>     <mailto:draft-kompella-mpls-larp@tools.ietf.org>;
>>     mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org <mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
>>
>>     Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp
>>
>>     Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha;
>>
>>     You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for
>> draft-kompella-mpls-larp.
>>
>>     Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
>>     that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
>>     document.
>>
>>     Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
>>     useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational
>> networks),
>>     and is the document technically sound?
>>
>>     We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be
>>     considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this
>>     point, but should be a good start).
>>
>>     Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
>>     secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
>>     may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>>
>>     If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about
>> what
>>     needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document,
>> and
>>     what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
>>     working group has the revision control.
>>
>>     Are you able to review this draft by 14, 2015? Please respond in a
>>     timely fashion.
>>
>>     Thanks, Loa
>>     (as MPLS WG chair)
>>     --
>>
>>
>>     Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>     <mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com>
>>     Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
>>     Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>     <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kireeti
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>