[mpls] Re: Comments abount rfc2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 22 October 2024 05:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@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 40021C169413 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ugul8UamIOeA for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 444BBC16940B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20c7ee8fe6bso49702535ad.2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1729575657; x=1730180457; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u7ubhlTV9E971/xLvpQ8cvssW+wGAVRWt2mbP6seYUI=; b=HvF67MFUvG0FmvBR4RFAbM3IyJfKDYdmvTfsUU0G7HHYn22J0IJL4pdr8ofQLMWXoF o1RB+PqWzk0Kehv98KwOWyqFAFXWwTqluRw1f+CzM2bheJN+kEqgfg0T5t+UdkBa7ME+ t6IHaDHDOOQBUfdtHlCrDRQlbAU5EmlSMHPH0dh2r/LVLpRVM1QhLv/ikifTw+G2LrZg Mu7bfYjBlOMReMsPI91riUTQAsgBgTpU2EY5G/fTWjMRr3xQoFt1S8bOZ+5IUrOP3heP ZXmaLNwuFkBSDscPTZlebnpiHmbTyoblM/LlRtu3FABeRCB3JqbdnZNzJfjxfpsEkkBU hqFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729575657; x=1730180457; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=u7ubhlTV9E971/xLvpQ8cvssW+wGAVRWt2mbP6seYUI=; b=XZ7rbq3H4qSIJoMHauOot8rNR6r2645PNUQYz+dKlWHgbuVVNhW6mAEy2H8LF1DF0O /smsSsUorROBn+F01uStGOHKjE4sKRJjIik6nsbKrtJc7YkUpBZxx7aJy+kFInYYXeYb Bv0lQwMZWPqGpEVCLabyyl/kZio52snVwbzRjETHlS2MReJRwhAc6iiFFIuzSMhyoxRj Uc6/I/I8wfymRm3VBYTCuL4s4hXl15jupHOcfoD9b6xFDP8EUXPhy7I3FkvmQedZTwix qeJDEteFt4hVcSpzD4VQ6cC2VUvKMSABvIcPX4a5pMGKfer2sahdCeLKZbMEpitzBJxv cnzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+F8IPtc6mjT99pJiV5CLYsH+ELgjtYBDOv4CP+P3Jq4oGeZHI X6iA4JXg3h0+ofQ2sYnBmHh4sa536NUW+aZQmtdqqdJk4UOCQwnh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHO/kJTj04Gj/KTaIwyLZOAggdp03LV3YBgc/2msGTl1JaMA3RtGKSNBZ1PzL4uA131pUeqgQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f68b:b0:20c:d76b:a7a0 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20e5a71ec2amr197558105ad.8.1729575657343; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-93-167-4.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.93.167.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-20e7f0dfc09sm35008475ad.236.2024.10.21.22.40.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <28003919-0AF7-495E-A5B4-8CE3A7F7C608@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44647030-D385-4F64-AD45-7BF3FBD98E07"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3818.100.11.1.3\))
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:40:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CA+SXWCnrL-0AbHKJo_k0RNhVP-maJQqkwfdaZfx4wo82eKYO=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tuấn Anh Vũ <anhvt.hdg@gmail.com>
References: <CA+SXWCnrL-0AbHKJo_k0RNhVP-maJQqkwfdaZfx4wo82eKYO=w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3818.100.11.1.3)
Message-ID-Hash: MLD26T3FUQHAO4K2HRZHKUOPIC6D53TR
X-Message-ID-Hash: MLD26T3FUQHAO4K2HRZHKUOPIC6D53TR
X-MailFrom: tony1athome@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: Comments abount rfc2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tX-Pgr-CftOdR_F8FKegt7ZE8cE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

[WG chair hat: on]

Hi AnhVT,

This probably would be more approrpiate if directed to the TEAS WG.  They are responsible for RSVP maintenance.

Regards,
Tony


> On Oct 21, 2024, at 8:44 PM, Tuấn Anh Vũ - anhvt.hdg at gmail.com <mailforwards@cloudmails.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi IETF team,
> I'm AnhVT from the SVTech company in VietNam, I have experienced some RSVP issues in the IPv4 MPLS network.
> I suspect that RSVP has a point that needs to be enhanced. I describe this point below:
> 
> I./ Topology:
>     ---------LSP-------->
>     R1----R2----R3-----R4
>           |    /
>           |  /
>            R5
> II./ Issue
> 1./ Because of some bugs (exp: R3 experiences a flap link between R3-R2, but R2 does not recognize the interface flap), R3 indicates that LSP is down, then it deletes the LSP state and sends the PathTear downstream to R4.
> 2./Because R2 does not recognize the interface flap, R2 still keeps it available. It does not know that the LSP should be deleted.
> 3./ Due to 1./ and 2./ R1 does not know that the LSP is stuck because R3 and R4 deleted the LSP state, and R1 continues forwarding traffic to the LSP, This makes the service down.
> 
> III./ My comment
> I think that RSVP needs a mechanic so that R3 signals to R2 to ensure that R2 knows that R3 deleted the LSP. Based on that signal, R2 will bring down the LSP and continue to send Reserve Tear to R1.
> 
> I hope that you take a look at my comment.
> 
> Regards,
> AnhVT
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org