Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08
"Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> Wed, 28 February 2024 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <zzhang@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912FDC14F69B; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:40:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.705
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b="kxkiXVdd"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b="GUAevJeg"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEY2i7TVLViT; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1DA6C14F680; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.17.1.24/8.17.1.24) with ESMTP id 41SC4UBR005965; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:40:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to :content-type:mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=5U2M0tJ7lDiguPvdyIhaWt HSUF6MzhXv1lUibBszHpY=; b=kxkiXVddojRnqkBibRxt7VQgbn8Z6SuLdINJxN wRmswD2nkyIivqLjHxoMpVrrlILJ7OITKC96tvle21kGLhTZwS1RSMQmptznUuHw 87YGG7pjRENsif0QKunRjasD8KLxHwtEb5TNl9YULP7PszLp9W3Sp6NNyJp6xAkn eqCEhe6IOJJl1xzq3Opf04tV07Ej0W2XjVj+3in/PUMhRUFt/p8ALUuK7/k8BhZU redJ8Q+3GgYn9ugFldDfpXAoqhcmZFUlBxnbZCVlmPwHJBR0HkR9eOfS2Lzh450M G/GzqanI9+XGEkIvvDgcBp00aXSGEec6Q40j5XsghOLRbJxA==
Received: from ch1pr05cu001.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-northcentralusazlp17010000.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.93.20.0]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wfgkmygtw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:40:22 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=MeHDpNpNuPQGEmyF25sbh3oZaWZAhCwohVyBuv5iOMnU5sTf7C4OGs6VWyVoVAn5OyOiXZLiylPa49rFKPmqjsIbxgx+KramzhMYBL0oMWaZzxCfevSTWc/a0HPVo7nhI4A6Da9nlW0nFujTZ3y9FLsv0UbAEL0I9PrDmu/2OYcIWsLy1wcOts7A68ozszB3zkcLWu9zRuLosnRbdrei7ay+aappMJ+PTWGqJWUIg/2QHm0hUOKye3+wJOSbExJy7VM4639fo0JxdUr3DIHTjZb4oYL4lKWVkqCcIDpamtItDT42SzSIUS0fHtAv3WGwBibzUEkf693pUzNgeC6h6Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=5U2M0tJ7lDiguPvdyIhaWtHSUF6MzhXv1lUibBszHpY=; b=j2/DZu7vpk1mtSLzSTIAZufIAGE47xjYHG/4INMFPvhNmMJiEXNGDnl4PjLO0+xSihxhL2eqPFTM5IesDzuDZ1sRea4kQVPe9BileQETL4zoK/kcc12Ufkin2p8xTDP6mZ8LoHcI/Tr72DCBpTtV8T4kSwBHmOP5QrBBdHbqspO8QvqYur3nPgBKViXvNzOu8hlZ2hp7uWwJVo3dy3Zo/39N0y8/IEl8ugwJMWpFpiTBN+EmggrCBJj8xTOIfTSRg0mlpMq1qVe4GT21qeTTuV1b9qQ93nd6B4dZZ6U6Avd5VLfrO2Fomp2hKeKzAzjWQuFM5ARw8zybVF3ekeQR8g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=5U2M0tJ7lDiguPvdyIhaWtHSUF6MzhXv1lUibBszHpY=; b=GUAevJeggYWbVr4KvilSrSmvVWnOfBHj/BjZz/5Z38laPmlofOg++vsnR7W5WMrHAXOWl2jdw6pNOzlC6RvPPaHDCkpfhuVlHQ4R0ZCK8CefG4df8gRI67RSFnguyBq1bYMyyUTaK74AolFb2sZvp5jk82WfhelWz9txr7BhRqI=
Received: from IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:426::16) by DS0PR05MB9744.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:8:14c::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7316.34; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:40:13 +0000
Received: from IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4c5d:def9:3e54:e076]) by IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4c5d:def9:3e54:e076%4]) with mapi id 15.20.7316.039; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:40:13 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
CC: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08
Thread-Index: AQHaW4Ss5jL0U4qFGka3laGFiKt1UrETa7AAgAyVhoCAAABdwA==
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:40:13 +0000
Message-ID: <IA1PR05MB9550EEA45931956981A0F94BD4582@IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <169334219423.43666.11674402467293148118@ietfa.amsl.com> <BL3PR11MB5731F024B956470B0F180778BF4B2@BL3PR11MB5731.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DS0PR19MB650130B2C16797C8A9AAED07FC502@DS0PR19MB6501.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <A5D1E975-954F-4CB1-BBB9-0D55AD86D5A5@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <A5D1E975-954F-4CB1-BBB9-0D55AD86D5A5@tony.li>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=a59dfacc-e914-4dd5-9bf7-c48a62b558a3; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2024-02-28T15:39:24Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: IA1PR05MB9550:EE_|DS0PR05MB9744:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3ad710f7-cb96-46ae-414b-08dc38738de0
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(230273577357003)(38070700009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_IA1PR05MB9550EEA45931956981A0F94BD4582IA1PR05MB9550namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3ad710f7-cb96-46ae-414b-08dc38738de0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Feb 2024 15:40:13.1824 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: gybPheAQwCVBsWkZ83mxFhzwWbSErV3caTMYgLGG0s2qXIWH87u9lkKM9YCUnhSWSJdneftvm1TP2sR9xyqQzQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS0PR05MB9744
X-Proofpoint-GUID: k2qNdgUYSocPElyKvisZUuWaeMn8gDB1
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: k2qNdgUYSocPElyKvisZUuWaeMn8gDB1
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-02-28_07,2024-02-27_01,2023-05-22_02
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2402120000 definitions=main-2402280121
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/RcR-HhWTyQTVsMmcV8MIkzFUxN0>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:40:28 -0000
Hi Tony, I have not got a chance to verify, but I’m trying to finish that by this week (or may be next). Thanks. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 10:38 AM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net> Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>; rtg-dir@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, I’ve been assigned as the new document shepherd for draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr. AFAICT, Rakesh has responded to your comments and published revision -09. Does this address your issues? Thanks, Tony On Feb 20, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you Jeffrey for the review and comments and to the authors for trying to address them. Was there other outstanding issues that still need follow-up? If not, can the review result state be updated. Thanks. Regards, Tarek (as document Shepherd) From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>> Date: Friday, February 9, 2024 at 1:20 PM To: Zhaohui Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>, rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org> <rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08 Thanks, Jeffrey, for the detailed review. Apology for the delay in replying. We have posted a revised draft with suggested changes. HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-09.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-09.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Akkfx8i_BhQdUkueVBX9_BzEKpQtgQxu3sjNXCzpFfhAlNqUXop5s6WB4Sh8K6uq0BfyA01sK8CXviXyMA$> Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-09__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Akkfx8i_BhQdUkueVBX9_BzEKpQtgQxu3sjNXCzpFfhAlNqUXop5s6WB4Sh8K6uq0BfyA01sK8AVbFg3-A$> Please see in line with replies tagged with <RG>…. From: Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 4:50 PM To: rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org> <rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr.all@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr.all@ietf.org>>, mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>> Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-08 Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang Review result: Has Issues General comment: The document name and title/subject (including the short title at each pager header) should have RFC6374 removed. It's better to be named as "Performance Measurement for SR-MPLS", because it is not only using RFC6374 but also 7876 and 9341. <RG> Updated. Some specific commnets: [RFC6374] specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of performance metrics in MPLS networks using query and response messages. [RFC7876] specifies mechanisms for sending and processing out-of-band responses over an UDP return path when receiving RFC 6374 based query messages. These mechanisms are also well-suited in SR-MPLS networks. This document utilizes the mechanisms defined in [RFC6374] for Performance Delay and Loss Measurements in SR-MPLS networks, for both SR-MPLS links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths including Policies. In addition, this document defines Return Path TLV and Block Number TLV extensions for [RFC6374]. Should mention RFC7876 and RFC9341 as well. <RG> Updated. For delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS networks, the procedures defined in [RFC6374] are used in this document. Note that the one- way, two-way and round-trip delay measurements are defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374] and are further described in this document for SR-MPLS networks. Similarly, the packet loss measurement is defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC6374] and is further described in this document for SR-MPLS networks. My personal preference is not to repeat what is already described/specified in RFC6374. An implementation can't solely rely on this document but need to refer to RFC6374 and other RFCs anyway, so this document can just refer to those and point out differences. This will highlight the differences and reduces the chance of copy and paste errors - a good thing for authors, reviewers and implementors. <RG> Updated to remove various repetitions. I did not try to match the description between this document and the "base" RFCs. So far I have not seen many differences besides the following: - TTL - Return Path TLV, presumably only applicable to SR-MPLS - Block Number TLV, presumably not specific to SR-MPLS - SR-P2MP Am I missing anything? <RG> FYI, the draft also describes: 1. the one-way/two-way/LB modes as applied to SR-MPLS. 2. destination and source TLVs as applied to SR-MPLS. 3. Path segment for loss. SR is enabled with MPLS data plane on nodes Q1 and R1. The nodes Q1 and R1 may be directly connected via a link enabled with MPLS (Section 2.9.1 of [RFC6374]) or a Point-to-Point (P2P) SR-MPLS path [RFC8402]. The link may be a physical interface, virtual link, or Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX], or LAG member link. The SR-MPLS path may be an SR-MPLS Policy [RFC9256] on node Q1 (called head-end) with destination to node R1 (called tail-end). The paragraph mentions "link". Is that the same as the "SR-MPLS link" used throughout the document? Is there a difference between "MPLS link" and "SR-MPLS" link when it comes to performance measurement? <RG> Updated to say link. It may be desired in SR-MPLS networks that the same path (same set of links and nodes) between the querier and responder be used in both directions of the measurement. This is achieved by using the SR-MPLS Return Path TLV extension defined in this document. Should "It may be ..." be changed to "If it is ..."? I don't see justification for "it may be desired". <RG> Updated. The packet loss measurement using Alternate-Marking Method defined in [RFC9341] requires collecting Block Number of the traffic counters. This is achieved by using the Block Number TLV extension defined in this document. In RFC9341, the wording is MAY not MUST or "required": <RG> Updated. The Alternate-Marking Method described in this document literally splits the packets of the measured flow into different measurement blocks. An implementation MAY use a Block Number (BN) for data correlation. Is it that Block Number TLV extension defined here is not SR-MPLS specific? Better to clarify. <RG> Updated for MPLS. A query message as shown in Figure 2 is sent over the SR-MPLS links for both delay and loss measurement using the procedures described in [RFC6374]. For SR-MPLS links, the TTL value MUST be set to 255 in the SR-MPLS header. SR-MPLS encapsulation (e.g., using adjacency SID of the link) can be added for transmitting the query messages for SR- MPLS links. Can you elaborate how adjacency SID can/should be used? If Q1 and R1 are "directly" connected via an (SR-)MPLS link, do you need any MPLS encapsulation, and in particular what adjacency SID does Q1 use? <RG> Updated to remove it. Note that in addition to the P2P SR-MPLS paths, the SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV is also applicable to the P2MP SR-MPLS paths. For example, for P2MP SR-MPLS paths, it may only carry the Node Segment Identifier of the querier in order for the response to follow an SR- MPLS path back to the querier. Shojld the "may only carry" be "MUST only carry"? <RG> Updated to remove it. SR-P2MP policy documents are not mature yet. draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy is only about general concept and draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy is only at -00 revision - not ready for WGLC. It's best to leave P2MP outside the scope of this document. <RG> Updated to remove it. Thanks, Rakesh _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-… Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-m… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-m… Tarek Saad
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft… Tony Li
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-m… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang