Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04.txt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 04 February 2021 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 D58C13A1349 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 tp0RlTT5M4SZ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8D93A1348 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.184.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 576DC329CE9; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:13:02 +0100 (CET)
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <161178108021.22202.14818070465307458434@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM7PR07MB6248022FB20ECCBEACCEA071A0B59@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1203e0cb-2b10-472c-65cf-4b26802eab40@pi.nu> <AM7PR07MB6248DF5E7628671FCA9A622BA0B49@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <682f56fc-b0f6-406d-3843-66baf1689749@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:12:57 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248DF5E7628671FCA9A622BA0B49@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/oBeXtaXWfz282JxEhjrYNjPIIQY>
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 04 Feb 2021 07:13:08 -0000

Tom,

Are you strting to understand why I spent time to clean up the LSP Ping 
registry :) ??

I'm convinced that by the updates ine 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update erything in this registry is 
cöose to coorect.

Howeve it is not always clear and it is easy to go wrong.

Let us see if I can sort it out (and if you have text for improvements 
that is fine)

LDP Ping has two messages "Echo Request" and "Echo Reply".
- both message may carry a "Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"

-- the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV has a "Labels Stack sub-TLV"

--- Labels Stack sub-TL has a "Protocol" code point (see registry
     "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
      Mapping TLV".

---- it is Protocol code point registry that is updated and extended by
      the draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

Similarly the "Echo Request" and "Echo Reply"
  has three TLVs
-Type 1 (Target FEC Stack)
  Type 16 (Reverse Path - Target FEC Stack)
  Type 21 (Reply Path)

-- Each of these TLVs has three sub-TLVs has a Segment ID sub-TLV

--- Segment ID su-b-TLV has a "Protocol" code point

---- it is Protocol code point registry that is updated and extended by
      the draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

The protocol registgries are not update by 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update.

/Loa


On 03/02/2021 17:38, tom petch wrote:
> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> Sent: 03 February 2021 05:05
> 
> Tom,
> 
> While I'm a great fan of references, I don't see that it is necessary in
> this case.
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update updates the Message Types,
> Reply Modes, Return Codes. TLV and sub-TLV registries.
> 
> The code point for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint is
> allocated from the "Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV" registry. This
> registry is not change, so I don't see that the scenario you describe
> below could play out.
> 
> <tp>
> My starting point is that I cannot make sense of the IANA Considerations in this I-D. They might be clearer if they used the allocated numbers for TLV and sub-TLV.
> 
> It  says
> "   IANA is requested to assign a new code point for OSPFv3 from
>     "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
>     registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
>     Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:"
> 
> Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV would appear to be TLV20 so Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV should be a sub-TLV of TLV20; there is no such sub-TLV. IANA lists
> 1 Multipath data [RFC8029]
> 2 Label stack [RFC8029]
> 3 FEC stack change [RFC8029]
> 4 Local Interface Index [RFC8611]
> 5 Remote Interface Index [RFC8611]
> 
> I find that problematic.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 03/02/2021 01:39, tom petch wrote:
>> I believe that this I-D needs a Normative Reference to
>>                Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
>>                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
>> since that I-D updates the registry that this I-D then seeks to update and if this I-D gets there first then the update can be overridden by
>>                Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
>>                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-07
>> and lost.
>>
>> And this last I-D changes the meaning of the registry which could be seen as theoretically rendering this I-D invalid.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Sent: 27 January 2021 20:58
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG of the IETF.
>>
>>           Title           : OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
>>           Authors         : Nagendra Kumar Nainar
>>                             Carlos Pignataro
>>                             Mustapha Aissaoui
>>           Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04.txt
>>           Pages           : 6
>>           Date            : 2021-01-27
>>
> 
> --
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64