Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-07.txt
Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Sat, 22 August 2015 14:27 UTC
Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507BA1A899E; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 HGNLffivhom3; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (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 B058C1A898B; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obkg7 with SMTP id g7so79927828obk.3; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5/wAml4Iwe3nH29KWP7jxoWkjTg9NhMtm2X3K/jkD2c=; b=RcT4ssGCKZNtovuPayKMqc6P6N1vZ8qYfGhdwbto9J6rqnWZ/B54jKLQcHanmw57W7 ol1JFNETCXXhokJF4aJ6WWlFeqWQF2E2vfHff6PBSuH4OMRhczjHDdnQCC7ffO2c5w4+ OcsJH9epGXTwdXYdO/YDAdpMMyXXy00dq2KTHNYoaheaZsYP8VF0B7H8BlcGG6lPFm9V 0rRMkdf/wTLIA2ZzbxJr1DK/EP85i/gEVgM46JguUK5G81ArI3t+G0Ef4ZB4gCLC8aUE 7q2w6oGeq8pwd9yoGEFFa64v2scfMPY7HA8irG9qLC+EoNlPr89i5tOLzIrxIfPb3O5q nfAw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.158.9 with SMTP id wq9mr1773828obb.76.1440253618197; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.209.209 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D5C74B.5020500@cisco.com>
References: <CAH==cJw0gYz17bWYwe6+VKVCcWjYZR=j0V5f5Ywec_jXnte62Q@mail.gmail.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68B5A900449@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20150808183111884135100@gmail.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68B5A9B3543@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <201508122345018343936@gmail.com> <55D5C74B.5020500@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:26:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJxmQ-4fpubQW86QTwPaF8D5cyegKkL_o3z0ZL-FumqS7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e014948be4c9c03051de72d8b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/CMIjXl0BEWPTs8ybe3tWvKgtFXg>
Cc: rtg-dir <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree@tools.ietf.org>, "Giles Heron (giheron)" <giheron@cisco.com>, "david.i.allan" <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, pals <pals@ietf.org>, agmalis <agmalis@gmail.com>, Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "Fedyk, Donald (Don)" <donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:27:00 -0000
Stewart, you are the best guy to join the review. Regards Lizhong On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote: > On 12/08/2015 16:45, lizho.jin@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > 13. Section5.2: “For both methods, VLAN mapping parameters from a > remote PE can be provisioned or determined by a signaling protocol as > described in Section 6 when a PW is being established”. For the global > method, why we need signaling? > > [JY] Just as the sentence says, the global VLAN method does not rely on > signaling for its work. > > But the SPs may prefer to use one method (e.g., global VLAN based) in > scenario A and the other method (e.g., local VLAN based) in scenario B, and > they would like to keep both methods work in a similar way, so the > signaling protocol was designed to be applicable in both methods to give > them a similar operation experience (if signaling is supported). > > [Lizhong] I don't agree, what if deploying only global mode? You are > talking about the operational experience, but I am talking about the > technology. It is very confusing for the readers. > > [JY2] Firstly, signaling for global method is not mandatory. Secondly, > when control plane is needed, it is simple to implement if the same > signaling can be used in both cases. BTW, even in the global mode, we may > save some work in configuration if we have signaling capability (thus we > only need to configure two VLAN values per router). > > > SB> I honestly do not understand the problem with the original text. > > SB> Sure if you only use global you do not NEED signalling, but if you > want to implement it that way it will work, and the text makes it clear > that signalling is optional. > > > ========== > > 19. Section6.1: “If the PE is a leaf-only node itself, then a label > release message with a status code "Leaf to Leaf PW released" is sent to > the peer PE and exit the process;” When both PE release the mapping. Then > when one PE1 change the setting to have both root&leaf, and send label > mapping to PE2, will PE2 be triggered to send label mapping to PE1? > According to RFC5036, I think the answer is no. You need additional > mechanism here. > > [JY] Why PE2 cannot be triggered to send label mapping to PE1? IMO, we > don't need any additional mechanism here. If the configuration is changed > for a failed PW establishing session, then a new round of PW negotiations > can take place between PE1 and PE2. Furthermore, the PW negotiation process > is standardized in RFC 4447 rather than RFC 5036, and you can find answers > there. > > [Lizhong] You should give out the technical reason. There is no > configuration changing on PE2, and PE1 release the mapping from PE2, then > the PE2 will not send mapping again since DU mode is used for PW signaling. > BTW, the PW signaling RFC4447 is based on RFC5036, and also updated by > RFC6723. One method is, like RFC6723, PE1 need LDP request message to > reestablish the PW. > > > SB> The correct document to use as the basis for this discussion is > 4447bis, since that is the description of PW signalling that has all the > errors corrected. > > SB> So is this protocol broken if the procedures in RFC4447bis are applied? > > [JY2] this is similar to comment 20 since it deals with topology and TLV > parameter updates. > > > > > Also can I suggest that the document is updated with the changes we know > we are going to make so we know exactly what text we are dealing with and > can deal with the unresolved issues withing that context. When we have the > text technically correct we will then need to do an English Language pass > to pick up the concerns raised by our AD. However I am reluctant to do > this, or ask someone else to do do it before the outstanding technical > issues are all fixed. > > If you think it is useful to set up a conference call to resolve this > please let me know. > > - Stewart > > > >
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-l2… Jiangyuanlong