Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt
Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Mon, 14 October 2013 17:02 UTC
Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
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 C90A621E8171; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qJnGxtuU1pY7; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24D321E80E1; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fda8e0000024c6-5c-525c2386f450
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8E.7B.09414.6832C525; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:01:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:01:58 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOxYUSjv9ovtIJkkW6NPBEAjYZSJny0cn5gACRRiCAADQ0BYAAE12wgAAS/oCAAB9uEIAAcVUAgAAhKkA=
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:01:58 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B6F9071@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E4DB390@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA0215156390@ILPTWPVEXMB01.ecitele.com>, <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E4DE7C1@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA02151563F2@ILPTWPVEXMB01.ecitele.com> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E4DE827@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B6F8E0D@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA0215156592@ILPTWPVEXMB01.ecitele.com> <2bf422c8e5674cbdba8faa198d57e0fa@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <2bf422c8e5674cbdba8faa198d57e0fa@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuG67ckyQwf6lXBZTt35gtjj45yqL xZy7zhZz7t1jtbi1dCWrxfM5M1ksFqx5yu7A7tH6bC+rx6Z/xxk9liz5yeRxvekqu8eXy5/Z AlijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLWrDvAXHCrsmJlzyLmBsbD8V2MnBwSAiYSV+78ZIOwxSQu3FsP ZgsJHGWUmHVQrIuRC8hezihxtf8UWIJNwEjixcYedhBbRCBB4vKUA2A2s8BaJonnd/NAbGEB Z4nTNw8wQtS4SMw6c4YJwk6SWPfuHjOIzSKgKvH+UwdYnFfAV6Ln8i5WiGUvWCQ+73rGApLg FAiTuLS1D2wBI9B130+tYYJYJi5x68l8JoirBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8VwlaW+D7nEQtEvY7E gt2f2CBsbYllC18zQywWlDg58wnLBEaxWUjGzkLSMgtJyywkLQsYWVYxcpQWp5blphsZbGIE Rt0xCTbdHYx7XloeYpTmYFES5/3y1jlISCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA6Oa29fZ ol78f8Wa2aYVBmhsZqk44qDjFGP2Uf/ygug9N9PZHfjPFkkemmg1Zc7BSPWW3UcZtXRV5txm v7Wr0jvbbf9PSxPL5rpAo/QZHkqLXtfPFp9jtMkk3rijbaum8GNP/flNDfPqjngy/ttcsjPI nvFpLc/nY7t8+qafObUwJ6WMbWJzrRJLcUaioRZzUXEiAFssFKOIAgAA
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:12:23 -0700
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:02:08 -0000
Hi John, I was thinking that two unidirectional LSPs that happen to be co-routed can form an associated bi-directional LSP. I believe that Eric Gray explained that that was not interpretation and intention of RFC 5960 to see co-routed bi-directional p2p LSP not as single unified object but as two federated objects. I recall that intention was to have case of accidental co-routedness in associated p2p LSP. In other words, associated bi-directional was not meant to happen to be co-routed. Well, that is my recollection of talking with Eric and hope it's accurate one. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 7:55 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein; Gregory Mirsky Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 1:08 AM > To: Gregory Mirsky > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); mpls@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-mpls- tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; > rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > Greg, > Lots of thanks for an important comment. > > Regarding your example: my personal interpretation of 5654 is like following: > - Co-routed bidirectional LSPs MAY be protected using bi-directional > protection schemes but MUST NOT be protected using unidirectional ones [JD] I don't think that is true for a pair of co-routed associated unidirectional LSPs. > - Associated bidirectional LSPs MAY be protected using both > unidirectional and bi-directional protection schemes [JD] Conversely, if a pair of associated unidirectional LSPs are diversely routed, it may be difficult to apply bidirectional protection to them. > > Does this match your understanding? > > Regards, > Sasha > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:23 AM > > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Alexander Vainshtein > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta- stone.all@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > Hi Manav, > > I do feel that "fate sharing" already has certain interpretation in > > the > industry. > > Difference in, for example, protection between co-routed and > > associated bi- directional LSPs doesn't seem not to be described by > > "fate sharing". I think of it as in co-routed case LSP protected as > > a single entity while in associated case each direction of LSP is > > protected > independently of the other. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:26 PM > > To: Alexander Vainshtein > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta- stone.all@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > Sasha, > > > > I think the confusion is over what we mean by "fate sharing". > > > > To me, if the forward path is torn down for some reason, and that > > results in the backward path being torn down as well, then they > > inextricably > "share the fate". > > > > If the path of the forward LSP changes because of an IGP trigger, > > then the backward LSP changes too in case of co-routed bidirectional LSPs. > > However, this isn't true in case of Associated bidirectional LSPs. > > Similarly, an IGP change (or a network event -- link/node flap, > > link/node down) will always result in both directions changing their > > path in case of co-routed bidirectional LSPs. This doesn't happen in > > case of Associated bidirectional LSPs. Its this difference that I > > wanted the > authors to highlight as part of my review comment. > > > > If you think "fate sharing" is not the most appropriate term then > > you can suggest something else as long as you believe its something > > that ought to be mentioned. > > > > Cheers, Manav > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alexander Vainshtein > > > [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:37 AM > > > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; > > > mpls@ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: RtgDir review: > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > > > > > > Manav, > > > Lots of thanks for a prompt response. > > > > > > I must admit that I've mssed the text in 5960 to which you refer. > > > > > > The original definition, to the best of my understanding, is in > > > Section 1.2.2. of RFC 5654 and says something else: > > > > > > > > > Co-routed Bidirectional path: A path where the forward and backward > > > directions follow the same route (links and nodes) across the > > > network. Both directions are setup, monitored and protected as a > > > single entity. A transport network path is typically co-routed. > > > > > > To me this means that if one of the directions of the co-routed > > > bi-directional path fails to convey traffic, the monitoring > > > mechanisms will report the entire bi-directional path as failed. > > > > > > To the best of my recollection when I=D to become RFC 5960 has > > > been discussed I've asked the authors of RFC 5960 whether the > > > pairing between two directions of a co-routed bi-directional > > > MPLS-TP LSP in a transit LSR is limited to OAM processing, and > > > they (or one of > > > them) have confirmed that this is indeed so. > > > > > > I wonder whether this can be interpreted as "fate-sharing". > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sasha > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 4:21 AM > > > To: Alexander Vainshtein > > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; > > > mpls@ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: RtgDir review: > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > > > RFC 5960 that describes the MPLS-TP data plane says the following: > > > > > > A point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP is a point-to-point > > > associated bidirectional LSP with the additional constraint that > > > its two unidirectional component LSPs in each direction follow the > > > same path (in terms of both nodes and links). An important > > > property of co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their > > > unidirectional component LSPs share fate. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > Cheers, Manav > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alexander Vainshtein > > > > [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 9:46 PM > > > > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > > > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; > > > > mpls@ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: RtgDir review: > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > > > > > Manav and all, > > > > Regarding one of the nits you've identified: > > > > "it would be useful to mention that an important property > > > of co-routed > > > > bidirectional path is that the forward and backward > > > directions share > > > > fate." > > > > > > > > IMHO and FWIW this is not correct. To the best of my > > > understanding the > > > > two directions of an MPLS-TP co-routed bi-directional path share > > > > lifespan (i.e.,they are set up and torn down in a single > > > management or > > > > control plane operation). > > > > But they do not share fate, as can be seen from the following > > > > examples: > > > > > > > > 1. A unidirectiona fiber cut in one of the links used by a > > > co-routed > > > > bi-directional trail will result in traffic failur in the > > > > affected direction but not necessarily in the reverse one > > > > > > > > 2. Consider the case when one of entries the ILM in one of > > > the transit > > > > LSRs is corruped. This will result in incorrect failure of a > > > > single label, but the rest of the labels would be handled > > > > correctly. Since co-routed bi-directional trails do not require > > > > using the > > > same label in > > > > both directions of a trail, the fate sharing would be broken. > > > > (Actually, in such a way it could be easily broken even if the > > > > same label is used on each segment of the LSP in both > > > > directions...) > > > > > > > > My 2c, > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] > > > on behalf of > > > > Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:55 PM > > > > To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > > > > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; > > > > mpls@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for > > > > this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing > > > > or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call > > > > and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. > > > > The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the > > > Routing ADs. > > > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please > > > > seehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html > > > > > > > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the > > > Routing ADs, > > > > it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any > > > > other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to > > > resolve them > > > > through discussion or by updating the draft. > > > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt > > > > Reviewer: Manav Bhatia > > > > Review Date: October 13th, 2013 > > > > IETF LC End Date: October 16, 2013 Intended Status: > > > > Informational > > > > > > > > Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but > > > > has nits that should be considered prior to publication. > > > > > > > > Comments: This document is built on top of terms already defined > > > > in different RFCs and ITU-T documents. The terms and definitions > > > > have already been reviewed so there is a trifle little that > > > > needs to be done there. Overall, the document looks good and > > > > ready for publication. Some of my comments can be > > > > > > > > Nits: > > > > > > > > o) Please expand PW in either the Abstract or Sec 3.5 > > > > > > > > o) When explaining Control Plane (3.6) should we mention that it > > > > is possible to operate an MPLS-TP network without using a > > > Control Plane? > > > > > > > > o) In 3.7, it would be useful to mention that an important > > > property of > > > > co-routed bidirectional path is that the forward and backward > > > > directions share fate. Similarly, in 3.1, we should mention > > > that the > > > > forward and backward directions don't share fate. > > > > > > > > o) 3.12 in the current text doesn't look very helpful. Can it be > > > > rephrased it to something like, "The equipment management > > > > function > > > > (EMF) provides the means through which an element management > > > > system > > > > (EMS) and other managing entities manage the network > > > element function > > > > (NEF)." > > > > > > > > o) 3.13 talks about Fault cause without explaining what a > > > fault cause > > > > is. It took me some time to understand what was meant by "fault > > > > cause". Can the authors of the draft rephrase > > > > 3.13 in their own language to explain what they mean by a > > > Failure. The > > > > current definition in the draft has been picked up as-is from > > > > ITU-T > > > > G.806 > > > > > > > > o) 3.14 talks about "inability of a function to perform a > > > > required action". Since this RFC-to-be is in the IETF domain, > > > > can this be rephrased to use a term like router/switch instead > > > > of a > > > more esoteric > > > > "function". This is a general comment and applies to most of the > > > > definitions that have been copied from the ITU-T documents. > > > > > > > > o) The last paragraph of 3.17 says the following: > > > > > > > > "OAM packets are subject to the same forwarding treatment > > > as the data > > > > traffic, but they are distinct from the data traffic." > > > > > > > > In what sense are the OAM packets distinct from the data traffic? > > > > > > > > o) Please include "T-PE" and "S-PE" in Sec 1.2. These have not > > > > been expanded in the document. > > > > > > > > o) Sec 3.19 uses TCM without expanding it first. > > > > > > > > o) In Sec 3.23, s/Tandem Connections/Tandem Connection > > > > > > > > o) In 3.28.3, can the following text be added: > > > > > > > > An LSP segment comprises one or more continuous hops on the path > > > > of the LSP. [RFC5654] defines two terms. A "segment" > > > > is a single hop along the path of an LSP, while a "concatenated > > > > segment" is more than one hop along the path of an LSP. > > > > > > > > o) In 3.31, Isn't Operations Support Systems (OSS) a more > > > common term > > > > than Operations Systems (OS)? > > > > > > > > Cheers, Manav > > > > > > > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and > > > > contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be > > > proprietary to ECI > > > > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please > > > > inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original > > > > and all copies thereof. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and > > > contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be > > > proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission > > > in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then > > > delete the original and all copies thereof. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpls mailing list > > mpls@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please > inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. > >
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-roset… Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Lou Berger
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… John E Drake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-r… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Bhatia, Manav (Manav)