Re: [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
"Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 12 November 2013 10:30 UTC
Return-Path: <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 2ACBC21F9C10 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g9R4p6eJuMnH for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3491721F9FF6 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rACAU4mu018897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:30:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rACAU17M031098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:30:04 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.146]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:30:03 +0100
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
Thread-Index: AQHO1Xsgrwsk4EgL6UysIRoHs1t7wJohaJAA
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:30:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA7ADA9.57647%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <52711561.1090209@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <563737A6EDF32742B274E8667099CD31@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Subject: Re: [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation 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: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:30:24 -0000
Stewart Thanks for your comments. Please see below. Matthew On 30/10/2013 14:19, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote: >I am about to put this into IETF LC. > >Please consider the following as LC comments. > >- Stewart > >Network Working Group Luca Martini (Ed.) >Internet Draft Cisco Systems Inc. >Expires: April 2014 >Intended status: Standards Track Matthew Bocci (Ed.) >Updates: 6073 Florin Balus (Ed.) > Alcatel-Lucent > > October 8, 2013 > > > Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires > > > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19.txt > >SB> it updates the length value of the PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type >0x06 to 14. >SB> It is confusing to talk about the "length value" of a TLV. I think you >SB> mean "length" MB> It should probably say "the value of the length field", since this value was incorrectly specified in RFC6073. > > > > > >2.1. Changes to Existing PW Signaling > > > This document also updates the length value of the PW Switching Point > PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14. > >SB> Same comment as above > > > >4.2. LDP Signaling > > > The complete definitions of the content of the SENDER_TSPEC objects > are found in [TSPEC] section 3.1. > >SB> TSPEC is actually RFC2210 isn't it? >SB> If so that would be a much better reference identifier MB> agreed > > > >4.2.1. Equal Cost Multi Path (ECMP) in PW Routing > > A next hop selection for a specific PW may find a match with a PW > route that has multiple next hops associated with it. Multiple next > hops may be either configured explicitly as static routes or may be > learned through BGP routing procedures. Implementations at and S-PE >SB> s/and/an/ > > or T-PE MAY use selection algorithms, such as CRC32 on the FEC TLV, > for load balancing of PWs across multiple next-hops. The details of > such selection algorithms are outside the scope of this document. > >SB> Presumable FAT is another option? MB> Yes. Fat PW didn¹t exist when this was written. I¹ll rephrase to ³Š,for example CRC32 on the FEC TLV, or Flow Aware Transport PW [RFC6391]Š² > > 4.2.2. Active/Passive T-PE Election Procedure > > > The determination of which T-PE assumes the active role SHOULD be > done as follows: the Source Attachment Individual Identifier (SAII) > and TAII are compared as unsigned integers, if the SAII is bigger > then the T-PE assumes the active role. > >SB> This does not look quite precise enough. You need to specify which >bytes >SB> and the bit order. What you say is technically correct >SB> but isn't it clearer to say that the T-PE with the larger >SB> SAII is active? MB> Yes. I¹ll rephrase. I¹ll also need to confirm the bit ordering. >SB> I do not see (pointer to) a definition of SAII or TAII in this draft MB> It should be RFC6074, with the AII format for the SAII and TAII as per Section 3.1 of this draft. I¹ll add text to clarify. > > > >6. Operations and Maintenance (OAM) > > In this case, the following TLV type (0x06) MUST be used > in place of type 0x01 in the PW switching point TLV: > >SB> This is "PW Switching Point PE sub-TLV" in RFC6073 MB> Yes. I¹ll correct. >SB> > >SB> Are there any interoperability issues with the change of length to >SB> 14, i.e. is there any length 12 code in the wild? MB> If you implement 6073 with a length field of 12, then the RFC6073 implementation would have problems, not just in the context of this draft, but in general. I believe that known implementations of 6073 that work correctly use a value of 14 for SP-PE TLV today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)