[PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 14:19 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 E488D11E822F for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, 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 qBrP0cD2IY3V for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EA621F9ECA for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2910; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383142761; x=1384352361; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ql+ZIaD8M1b3TFxDSx+9O9b2pM1JyNVmLsY8M5kEJC8=; b=TT1vw04BeVXgENvNvzdArNmVuedqxZtz05LvfXNPw5mdq7tE6wlVawPz OvU1u1a3LYPQWRi4kZpz7ItdnSUUoMQXHgctA0NHmwRyyWNuiPhOL9OwS vCWVJI5wXe98hrQKemCU2rjLCk5DV6OzN4GZDDn/4lX75UlbU7Nhn2NuJ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAH8UcVKQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABZgwfBfxZ0gmRAPRYYAwIBAgFLAQwIAQGIA6AVmmKUAgOUKoNgkgmDJg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,601,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="19127855"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2013 14:19:19 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9UEJEO0009730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:19:15 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r9UEJDAi011434; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:19:13 GMT
Message-ID: <52711561.1090209@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:19:13 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:19:37 -0000
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" 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 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? 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? SB> I do not see (pointer to) a definition of SAII or TAII in this draft 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 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?
- [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] AD comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)