Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 10 May 2017 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C03212EAA9; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 fXqbqfTtI3zp; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 75846128AB0; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p24so8470949ioi.0; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=qKK7klzpm+jnKD+cec9LqksoIPnUCyWGgItAqrfhbsk=; b=ZRhjgC/gZjqYCe9XeHX2R4WlFbWOV0tH72jP8Vl2siuki5IJEUFEXFBgXsa8GjdSQz Rgpt6w+NbL3T5+CAEHbdEhWD6Afpij2fUKPY1ucU0qhmiGivE/byCQNTzGJGE6QzVGyb 3CUMg04ViAzw1bGoOp5a/WwgntZlXPhVUwwI0A67q/tbyJdsUEjw6Wl/M2g72sfzonto GVfE7/8KRPn8Wvv3sbTyCBbF6uPpE2h2KtYRaR1o8jfZJomnJq2YBnn264fKd6lqzoz4 oPg3uR0KUoHGYi7SrJMGZX9qTBNvFTOMHRO+8OT9IU9iZ9X5LXvSqo78JaX1FuLsU8ai y1gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qKK7klzpm+jnKD+cec9LqksoIPnUCyWGgItAqrfhbsk=; b=r2javusmoOBpkIoS8Y2tFKemotHipk4hseNjC0YKqO9a4oP6+xUPDFfjPdzcRmh0w8 j491VJ+HDfbCALJPxzAsbOdmWm2hLIcXOvl/Cxc3CXlHEbRS+3agg3M1fVr0bCYTQJDS 1bV2Hh77Q2SJThvflm1DfRq4+0avOhoXCmmox4IlzAXbhDzNEZQZG+pTs8yv6IK2mwYa JK+sr63PuPlVkNkiLjgc7gFKxcicOZFL14X5kHMK6fokdCU0b+qaCkz9BuH72K/cNwuo z/JdmN2Utoua8VKWJvzb1yy5JXsI56gQU9mPHX2UBNb/szHQ2JN1YTTGE5QuXGUvaMoE Gmjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCJCJ/OM/ashqL16ZThZGtbgsuPqpkVyEsUmBjXLzOiZcAtj4Yl WHFmiN6ymCtMxpus9i5mOCB6OuzDyQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.205.132 with SMTP id d126mr5071044iog.155.1494445200753; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9D886964-6C21-427C-8733-7731D5A996D3@cisco.com>
References: <149430058880.24107.8628199428997673992.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVA3G8eucX2Q0=bHGdr+awmiXAd44BOMkdOmTQkeA6aYQ@mail.gmail.com> <1C12E162-6B5C-4EF2-A3CB-3621C72BCFE9@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXgfmL7+Bx-KxFcm=3tTtsCALmRhrhyX=uqF8kuDFw2nw@mail.gmail.com> <F3C093E0-FE4E-41C0-B9EB-0CA1CB52DBE7@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmX6GEDhD-A-DkLdABepOzeEqFB4DEKh+JKYyhz27O8J=A@mail.gmail.com> <9D886964-6C21-427C-8733-7731D5A996D3@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:40:00 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: x_PauMqsKG4nRRs352gzM0YQgdI
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=Bb2v6u9KtK7HpkHb1shS8WOWHBmJk5su0BU1PrJUiMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c18871853f0c7054f30a3b7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/_0BL5vM9m_Ag8jVEv9Vd5cdNy18>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 19:40:04 -0000

Hi Carlos,

Sorry what is "TFS" ?

RFC 7110 does not even use such abbreviation neither do
draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless
about it.

Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :)

Thx,
R.

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Greg,
>
> In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated through a label stack.
> But RFC 7110 does not use numeric label values, it uses TFSs. That does not
> create any additional state. E.g.,: https://www.ietf.org/
> mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg16091.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
> I probably would characterize anything that starts with Why not as a
> technical comment but rather as a question.
> According to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, "In the MPLS
> dataplane,the SR header is instantiated through a label stack".
> At the same time, one of advantages of SR is that "per-flow state only
> [maintained] at the ingress node to the SR domain".
> Thus, for the case of monitoring unidirectional SR tunnels, I consider
> that there's no need to create any additional state on the egress node.
> Of course, if there were bidirectional SR tunnels, then control of the
> reverse direction of the BFD session would not require use of the Return
> Path sub-TLV.
> As for LSP-Ping, I just propose that the Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel
> sub-TLV MAY be used Reply Path TLV defined in RFC 7110. I viewed the
> proposal as invitation to technical discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> Thank you Greg!
>>
>> Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems quite
>> similar to the text removed at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
>> ?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt, then the complete set of
>> outstanding technical comments that triggered the removal of that text from
>> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt might peek your interest :-)
>>
>> One that I recall is: why use label values when every other return-path
>> sub-TLV for BFD and for LSP-Ping, including draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed,
>> uses TFSs?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> — Carlos.
>>
>> On May 9, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Dear Carlos,
>> I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear
>> technical comments to the proposed solution.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>> cpignata@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg,
>>>
>>> Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised and
>>> comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N
>>> (with N < 5) apply to your new draft.
>>>
>>> This is one of those: https://www.ietf.org/ma
>>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list archive shows a
>>> few more. The copy/paste did not address the comments.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> — Carlos.
>>>
>>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> perhaps this new draft may is of interest to you.
>>> Your comments, suggestions are most welcome and greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>;
>>> Date: Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>> To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>>
>>> Name:           draft-mirsky-spring-bfd
>>> Revision:       00
>>> Title:          Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment
>>> Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
>>> Document date:  2017-05-08
>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>> Pages:          7
>>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
>>> drafts/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>> doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/
>>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>> doc/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>>
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source
>>>    routing.  It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
>>>    (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane.  A segment is
>>>    encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded
>>>    as a stack of labels.  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
>>>    expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems.  This document
>>>    defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control
>>>    path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing
>>>    network over MPLS dataplane.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>