Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 16:37 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 A4DE412956C; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:37:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 1rD0RNi8Njdn; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 1273A1294C0; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 2so42028938oif.0; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:37:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yjI0e3RTtb1k8czGDEteMaycxB//cHdcT/7bd0rj6Bk=; b=VH4C3dSiQ324CR9Tw9nWdDVWCL7crFao6aDaJscIgkT5VlaFBrm0nHkPF8UR4NG/3K k5GVytd5Pp9hUwCQd9nIBxFJw87yzbdElQnIoAyOzaXKDt6nVRkfqhWonqlUWQyBJRmR B9yXw+mu6BozBKw2JSDxQibHqgG3L7Ju6iw/3GB8brF+3a0Aovd4taBLYrr96ZPqHM7T qkOKpnMeKyzvnP8GMgGrHsA14AXTRoPHkSVAkEXcFuBcU9ppCwjtaeo1YWoQz3SKO46B hviNkAN9l0Jkzj0S0G/DVF1oIvcUdfSj0/dpkEJZI/rqrqEnU5D5nJomthvgwoXlzxi/ dTyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yjI0e3RTtb1k8czGDEteMaycxB//cHdcT/7bd0rj6Bk=; b=IfW+Lzf6Sru9AvxaLfDC5OTheLZTr3Ir/bdHGtOqW018EPyIzZFLQh1/tCwuGQAiEO qVp38fxPNmpq4UnX7MAAByn+5JWOz2ssX9ioIiLmtTuHphithdDPVyrr8UFIH0qUUmLX K//3uPz51hKBVP7h6VQn3OJcaQ8PLgHQXpYgwfb6q0+uh5L75ewpYQhkjo55lcvgzYfL oEqrXQB4FrMdB1Yy6MhgImvZuZC9Vuk4d/Ipg4QVDO1zqIwlIX6H9bUjWl3uDzypLKCR hWm3SDRNpsVY0o68QGz/LmObr3m4dhwbwWGH7/nMrSK8Kl/s9AFF3kzxtb2H7O0WdZAV ddZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lT2FZASMHvm697sIbPOUmifMZEcWToiCmi0Z+H90dRAedrsf+4aOpdbrTH7cu8Sa55wRCPlCEAbseYOg==
X-Received: by 10.202.236.140 with SMTP id k134mr6986797oih.123.1488472653426; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:37:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:37:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rf9tLRA9T2SQiTuUDNrLAFu1FXz0sS3nq5vjG-qX=BYew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148840955223.7128.11294700301996460693.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXPvwUYtu0YEYVwSibC-5Bd_574DKexQCV3UYvznkGULg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rf9tLRA9T2SQiTuUDNrLAFu1FXz0sS3nq5vjG-qX=BYew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:37:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXsBLjRDWOyARooWa1qtLfADxmyjU2-VAFgke7+XWrfbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134fc3ec3ff110549c20bb0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/v4qG1-h77ltHU0936VmZnN3r2Fw>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Mar 2017 16:37:37 -0000
Hi Alia, thank you for the proposed text. Accepted. Please see the updated text below. Regards, Greg On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >> thank you for your thorough review and the comments. Please find my >> responses in-line tagged GIM>>. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: Discuss >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/stat >>> ement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Thank you for a clear document. I think that this should be a >>> straightforward Discuss to better clarify. >>> >>> In Section 4.8.1, it says "The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered >>> list, from egress node to >>> ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path." but the >>> sub-TLVs (as most clearly >>> indicated by "4.8.1.3. Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV" are actually meant >>> to be a list of interfaces. >>> >> GIM>> I think that the text, e.g. by stating "The Length is always 12" and >> the Figure 10 are clear that only one interface can be listed in the >> sub-TLV. >> And the same is true for other sub-TLVs. >> > > The draft says"Only a single RTM_SET sub-TLV with the given Value field > MUST be present in the RTM_SET TLV. If more than one sub-TLV is found > the LSP setup MUST fail" > > There is nothing there that clearly states that only one of the 3 sub-TLVs > should be place in the RTM_SET TLV for a particular node. There is also > the inaccuracy between putting in interface addresses versus the claim that > it contains nodes. > > For instance, text could be added/changed to indicate: > > "The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO Object that > represents those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM-capable. After > a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO sub-TLV, that same > egress interface, if RTM-capable, SHOULD be placed into the RTM_SET TLV > using one of the IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6 sub-TLV, or Unnumbered Interface > sub-TLV. The address family chosen SHOULD match that of the RESV message > and that used in the RRO; the unnumbered interface sub-TLV is used when the > egress interface has no assigned IP address. A node MUST NOT place more > sub-TLVs in the RTM_SET TLV than the number of RTM-capable egress > interfaces the LSP traverses that are under that node's control." > > OLD TEXT: Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first -out sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the top. The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom. When a new sub- TLV is added, it is always added to the top. Only a single RTM_SET sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET TLV. If more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with the generation of a PathErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate sub-TLV" Section 8.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-05#section-8.9> and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV). NEW TEXT: Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first-out sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the top. The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom. When a new sub- TLV is added, it is always added to the top. The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO sub-TLVs that represents those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM- capable. After a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO sub-TLV, that same egress interface, if RTM-capable, SHOULD be placed into the RTM_SET TLV using one of the IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6 sub-TLV, or Unnumbered Interface sub-TLV. The address family chosen SHOULD match that of the RESV message and that used in the RRO; the unnumbered interface sub-TLV is used when the egress interface has no assigned IP address. A node MUST NOT place more sub-TLVs in the RTM_SET TLV than the number of RTM-capable egress interfaces the LSP traverses that are under that node's control. Only a single RTM_SET sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET TLV. If more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with the generation of a ResvErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate sub- TLV" Section 7.9 and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV). > It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be the egress interface, the >>> ingress interface, or just any >>> interface >> >> GIM>> In order for the process described in section 4.8 to work RTM node >> MUST use the same ID in RTM_SET sub-TLV as in RRO subobject. >> > > Right - but I don't see the draft saying that clearly. See my suggested > text above. > > >> - or why sending just a Router ID wouldn't be sufficient. >>> There is no indication as to whether >>> it is ok to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 address Sub-TLVs for the same >>> node or how to select which one >>> to use. >>> >> GIM>> Selection should follow election of ID for corresponding subobject >> in RRO. >> > > Agreed - see suggested text. > >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 1) I am disappointed that the sub-TLV needed for an OSPFv3 Extended LSA >>> isn't defined. While I understand that a normative reference isn't >>> desirable - instead of "left for future study", it would be better to say >>> that the sub-TLV should use the same format as in Sec 4.3 and that the >>> type allocation and full details are left to a future document. This is >>> exactly how gaps are created for networks running only IPv6. If >>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13 were not waiting for >>> implementations >>> and had a clear time-frame for how and when to progress, this would also >>> be a Discuss. >>> >> GIM>> I agree that your proposal narrows the gap for IPv6 extension for >> RTM capability advertisement. Will apply the text you've suggested in the >> next version. Hope OSPF WG agrees to this change. >> > > OLD TEXT: The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14#ref-I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend>]. Exact use of OSPFv3 LSA extensions is for further study. NEW TEXT: The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]. The sub-TLV SHOULD use the same format as in Section 4.3. The type allocation and full details of exact use of OSPFv3 LSA extensions is for further study. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Alia >
- [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-res… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky