Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3411)
Lizhong Jin<lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> Mon, 19 November 2012 01:26 UTC
Return-Path: <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731D921F84E9 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:26:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.873
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.725, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CCRUIYh-2feY for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B9621F857A for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 7F3841263572; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:28:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAJ1Qb8g005873; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:26:37 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.50.1353268816.7479.pwe3@ietf.org>
To: cpignata@cisco.com, rajiva@cisco.com, brian@innovationslab.net, chmetz@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, sugimoto@nortel.com, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFF1BDB7DE.BD7538CA-ON48257ABB.0006581B-48257ABB.0007EFB7@zte.com.cn>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:26:36 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-19 09:26:37, Serialize complete at 2012-11-19 09:26:37
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0007EFB448257ABB_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn qAJ1Qb8g005873
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3411)
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:26:56 -0000
Hi all, There is an aggregation scheme for AII PW routing defined in [draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]. In a pure IPv6 network, the 32bit address would LDP Router-id, and could not be aggregated. If we still use the 32bit number in an IPv6 network, there would be less or no aggregation for AII type2 PW routing entries. I even doubt if the longest match for PW routing table lookup is still needed in IPv6 network. This is also an concern for draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw. Thanks Lizhong > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:17:59 +0000 > From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> > To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> > Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "Chris Metz \(chmetz\)" > <chmetz@cisco.com>, "Luca Martini \(lmartini\)" <lmartini@cisco.com>, > "florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com" <florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com>, > "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "rdroms.ietf@gmail.com" > <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "sugimoto@nortel.com" <sugimoto@nortel.com>, > "andrew.g.malis@verizon.com" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3411) > Message-ID: > <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320DBD2A7@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > To me, the inclusion of an IPv4 address (/32 loopback) is one > example and not part of the definition. As such I am not too concern > about it since the definition piece is "32-bit prefix is a value > assigned by the provider". That said, the example might be > incorrectly extrapolated and not help clarify. > > Consequently, I support Yaakov's proposed disposition of "Hold for > Document Update". As a technical erratum it should be rejected, as > an editorial it should be clarified. > > Thanks, > > -- Carlos. > > > On Nov 16, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote: > > > The issue is the inclusion of IPv4 in that definition, which many > implementations could swear by. You would be surprised to find most > implementations simply copying IPv4 address here, because it is easy > and automatic. > > > > In fact, I am not aware of any implementation that provides a mean > to statically assign this 32-bit prefix to something other than IPv4 > interface address. > > > > Imagine an IPv6-only network, where the current definition would > require many implementations to change, and force operators to do > more manually assignments than needed. > > > > So, router-id has to be manually configured, and then this 32-bit > prefix has to be manually configured. > > > > Such definition does not help when IPv6 PSN comes along. Wouldn't > it be nice if the spec provided an automatic way, yet, stayed away > from IP version here. A bit of definition change (cosmetic really) > could go a long way in keeping our specs clear. > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > Sent from my Phone > > > > On Nov 16, 2012, at 8:16 AM, "Brian Haberman" > <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > > >> I have no issues with marking this erratum as rejected. Are > there other opinions? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Brian > >> > >> On 11/15/12 9:28 PM, Luca Martini wrote: > >>> RFC Editor, > >>> > >>> I propose to reject this Errata. > >>> There is no technical merit in changing the example on how one might > >>> possibly choose the 32bit number. > >>> This is a NIT , and does not affect implementations, nor service > >>> provider policies. > >>> the text "Prefix = The 32-bit prefix is a value assigned by the provider > >>> " is the main definition of how this 32 bit value is to be assigned. > >>> > >>> Luca > >>> > >>> > >>> Is the main point of this > >>> On 11/15/2012 01:09 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: > >>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5003, > >>>> "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation". > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> You may review the report below and at: > >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5003&eid=3411 > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> Type: Technical > >>>> Reported by: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com> > >>>> > >>>> Section: 3.2 > >>>> > >>>> Original Text > >>>> ------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> o Prefix = The 32-bit prefix is a value assigned by the provider or > >>>> > >>>> it can be automatically derived from the PE's /32 IPv4 loopback > >>>> > >>>> address. Note that, for IP reachability, it is not required that > >>>> > >>>> the 32-bit prefix have any association with the IPv4 address > >>>> > >>>> space used in the provider's IGP or BGP. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Corrected Text > >>>> -------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> o Prefix = The 32-bit prefix is a value assigned by the provider or > >>>> > >>>> it can be automatically derived from the PE's router-id > i.e. LSR Id. > >>>> > >>>> Note that it is not required that > >>>> > >>>> the 32-bit prefix is IP routable or have any association with the > >>>> > >>>> IPv4 address space used in the provider's IGP or BGP. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Notes > >>>> ----- > >>>> The intent of this RFC is to treat the 32bit prefix as a number > that provides uniqueness in the network (within the ASN). While it > can be derived from the IPv4 /32 Loopback address, it causes > confusion when routers are configured with no IPv4. It is better to > suggest using router-id used by LDP for calculating the LSR > identifier. How is router-id calculated is outside the scope of thisdocument.` > >>>> > >>>> Instructions: > >>>> ------------- > >>>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > >>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> RFC5003 (draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02) > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> Title : Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) > Types for Aggregation > >>>> Publication Date : September 2007 > >>>> Author(s) : C. Metz, L. Martini, F. Balus, J. Sugimoto > >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >>>> Source : Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge INT > >>>> Area : Internet > >>>> Stream : IETF > >>>> Verifying Party : IESG > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > pwe3 mailing list > > pwe3@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 103, Issue 20 > *************************************
- [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3411) RFC Errata System
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Brian Haberman
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5003 (3… Lizhong Jin