Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 05 February 2014 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 517E51A0033 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:30:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] 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 5W6Hg57wjvIf for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72B51A0031 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [119.95.156.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF6131802AAF; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:30:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52F1CC6F.1070906@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:30:23 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
References: <529F425C.1050808@pi.nu> <201312061405.rB6E5bL25339@magenta.juniper.net> <52A9958B.7040508@pi.nu> <201312121651.rBCGpYL46117@magenta.juniper.net> <52F11FD8.3000000@pi.nu> <201402042158.s14LwnL93027@magenta.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <201402042158.s14LwnL93027@magenta.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org" <draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 05:30:36 -0000

On 2014-02-05 05:58, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Loa,
>
>>>> Yakov,
>>>>
>>>> I can't see that this flies! In fact it is counter to the wg chair
>>>> proposal. We intended to keep the overlap as small as possible,
>>>> specify a function in the document that needs the function. We did
>>>> not intend to increase the overlap, but keep it as small as possible.
>>>>
>>>> You have this already neatly specified in draft-rekhter- let it stay
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> I am fine with keeping the encoding and the procedures for the two
>>> new mLDP TLVs: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV, and Transit IPv6 Shared
>>> Tree TLV in draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.
>>>
>>> However, I have a question on the following:
>>>
>>>     2.  Assuming that the drafts are adopted, complete
>>>     draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding as the
>>>     normative protocol specification of the piece within the
>>>     overlap.
>>>
>>> What do you define as "the overlap" ?
>>>
>>> Yakov.
>>
>> Yakov and Ice,
>>
>> I'm sorry that I left the two draft hanging in a no mans land for
>> such a long time, other than traveling, being busy with other working
>> group issues, and having to do a couple of restarts there are no excuse.
>>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> It is my understanding that the overlap is summed up in the following
>> text from draft-rekhter:
>>
>>     "This document also identifies the deployment scenarios where BGP
>>      Source Active auto-discovery routes will not be used."
>>
>> More specifically, the overlap is the case where the service provider
>> has provisioned the network in such a way that the RP for a particular
>> group G is always between the receivers and the sources.  If the
>> network is provisioned that way, the ingress PE for (S,G) is always
>> the same as the ingress PE for the RP, so the SA A-D routes are never
>> needed.
>>
>> Draft-rekhter should be scoped to the case where the network is not
>> known to be provisioned in this way.
>
> Could you please propose the text that you'd like meto insert in
> draft-rekhter ?
>
> Yakov.
>

Yakov,

I will try to do so, as I understand it you agree to go ahead with
the wg adoption poll for draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
encoding, while we sort out the text that needs to go into
draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

I will start this process as soon as I have a slot.

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64