Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Mon, 09 March 2015 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.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 8BB0D1ACD7C for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 v0u0AJ1kc1ju for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B63741ACD4C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79876d000003ebd-c2-54fdb53fa440
Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 06.E7.16061.F35BDF45; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:59:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:01:44 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org" <draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
Thread-Index: AQHQVvDgK8HGVN8p4k2ca0R6IkmelJ0Ue/Jg
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:01:43 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91CA76@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <54EC4776.5040402@pi.nu> <54F7C742.10906@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <54F7C742.10906@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91CA76eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonStd+698Qg3U3tCx62+ezWyx52cFu 8f3SEhaLW0tXsjqweCxZ8pPJ48vlz2wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGc8/H2EsOFBU8ej6LfYG xi35XYycHBICJhJfH91khLDFJC7cW88GYgsJHGGUePaCt4uRC8hexigxs+8mWIJNwEjixcYe dpCEiMAcRomJR+8zgySYBaIkmu6eBLOFBawk9p+9yA5iiwhYS7y/MoEFwjaSmPd2LlicRUBF 4sjB2WCbeQV8JZa/f8AMsdlaomHRa1YQm1NAWeLGylawGkag676fWsMEsUtc4taT+UwQVwtI LNlznhnCFpV4+fgfK4StKLGvfzo7RH2+xJNXp9kgdglKnJz5hGUCo+gsJKNmISmbhaRsFiMH UFxTYv0ufYgSRYkp3Q/ZIWwNidY5c9mRxRcwsq9i5CgtTi3LTTcy2MQIjLRjEmy6Oxj3vLQ8 xCjAwajEw2sw50+IEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXHeRQ8OhggJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLg lGpgLPzcWlVWJmzKIaXPZqu6pel7XdCK05dm3dyXfUQ3Q9k9gvngJaaebcKmx7KEv7z78vn/ 1fcs1jqhz23/ZmvuVkxwPao86WVVnHLMnbAtzH58ek/ZTnY+m/Tdo7qF7b3awodv+WosWaRr b1wqMT3c0exifbp9q69/zy7Tkku9B5mMZ+XEnD+hxFKckWioxVxUnAgAjIHSp5UCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/paw0Wf9zXhjk1v9K4_3jv5qQcbM>
Cc: "mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:02:22 -0000

Dear All,
I've been assigned to review draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping.
The document is very well written, the problem in focus is clearly stated, and the proposed solution well described.
I do have a number of concerns with the status of the document and the approach as presented:
•       document intended track is Informational even though the solution being positioned as "new, light-weight protocol". If this is indeed new protocol or even extension of the existing one, then I expect there must be requests to IANA allocations. At this time "This document makes no request of IANA." Either LSP Self-ping can be characterized through re-use of already existing protocols and approaches, or document should be switched to Standards track;
•       s/back-holing/black-holing/
•       Section 2 LSP Self Ping Procedures states:
         The ingress LSR executes the following procedure until verification-
         status equals TRUE or retries is less than 1
      Is this recommendation MUST, SHOULD, MAY or an example of an implementation as illustration only? For the Informational document I expect it is the latter but need authors to clarify.
•       Use of two self ping sessions to validate bi-directional LSP may be acceptable in case of associated bi-directional LSP. In case of co-routed bi-directional LSP, which is usually egress signaled, such approach doesn’t seem practical.
•       Security implication of the proposed mechanism need more extensive discussion and methods to mitigate possible negative effects.
•       I would encourage compare the proposed Self Ping mechanism with S-BFD as LSP validation tool before the WG considers adoption of this proposal.

My conclusion:
      validation of the LSP is practical problem but I’m not certain that proposed mechanism is the best among others being discussed at IETF.


        Regards,
                Greg

-----Original Message-----
Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:42:14 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com<mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>>, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com<mailto:lizho.jin@gmail.com>>, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org> <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>>, draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org>
<draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org>>, <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>> <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>>

Carlos, Greg, Mach and Lizhong,

You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-bonica-mpls-self- ping-04.

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
*really* need 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 Mar 11, 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