Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05

[Yaacov Weingarten <[e-mail]>]

Eric, hi

Thank you for your review and very in-depth comments, I will try to address
some of them inline below (indicated by "yw>>" before the comment.

Hope this helps,
yaacov

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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 see ****
>
> http://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 comments that
> you ****
>
> receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the
> draft. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05
> ****
>
> Reviewer: Eric Gray****
>
> Review Date: 17 April, 2013****
>
> Intended Status: Informational****
>
> ** **
>
> There is at least one major issue with this document, as it is now written.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Comments/Questions:****
>
> =================****
>
> ** **
>
> The "disclaimer" at the end of the Introduction misses a case related to
> the cases****
>
> excluded from the scope of this document – which is itself presumably out
> of scope.
>
>
>
yw>> Assume that you are referring to the disclaimer at the end of section
1.1 (as opposed to the one at the end of section 1)

>
>
> ** **
>
> The text currently talks to protection of a path prior to entry to the
> ring, or after ****
>
> exit from the ring.  The missing case is when the path is part of a
> protected service****
>
> that involves one or more alternative paths external to the ring.  It is
> not difficult****
>
> to think of a scenario in which a protection event outside of the ring
> will require****
>
> that data forwarded across the ring will need to enter the ring at a
> different point,****
>
> leave the ring at a different point, or both.****
>
> ** **
>
> While this would seem to impact the protection of the ring itself
> (possibly requiring****
>
> setup of similar protection for the new path traversing the ring), it
> should be quite****
>
> easy to represent such an occurrence as a set of discrete event/operations
> that ****
>
> would not be significantly different when compared to initial setup of
> protection for****
>
> the previous path in the ring.****
>
> ** **
>
> If for any reason folks feel that this may not be the case under some
> circumstances****
>
> this document should either address those cases or explicitly state that
> they will not****
>
> be addressed by this document.****
>
> ** **
>
> Alternatively, the issue may be addressed by simply removing the 2ndsentence of
> ****
>
> the "disclaimer" paragraph, or the cases explicitly stated should be
> expressed as****
>
> "examples."
>
>
>
yw>> How about if I change the text of the second sentence to read:
"Protection triggers on the transport path
   prior to the ring ingress node or beyond the egress nodes may be
protected by some other mechanism."?

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Bullet 4 of section 1.3 is confusing as written.  The meaning of "LI" is
> clear enough,****
>
> but "LE" presents some problems.  Suppose that PHP is used; in this case,
> there is ****
>
> no label "expected" at the egress point from the ring (although a label
> may be ****
>
> present and will be used by the LSR at that point, that label may not
> always be the****
>
> same label).****
>
> ** **
>
> Is PHP never permitted?
>
>
>
yw>> regarding this, I seem to recall such a discussion regarding MPLS-TP
and PHP.  However, in any case if there is no such label, why couldn't
LE=null? It is just being presented for discussion, not as an actual label.

>
>
> ** **
>
> Also, under what circumstances would the ring egress point SPME exit LSR
> not****
>
> be the same?  Based on subsequent reading, I believe this would be the
> case for****
>
> use of an SPME to provide "Wrapping" protection – it would probably
> therefore****
>
> be a good idea to either say something to this effect (if that is the
> case) or provide****
>
> a forward reference (to section 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4, for example, or
> possibly****
>
> just to section 2.3).****
>
> ** **
>
> I would suggest adding a sentence to this bullet, along the lines of:****
>
> ** **
>
> "See section 2.3 for examples of where the SPME egress and ring exit might
> not****
>
> be the same."
>
>
>
yw>> How about if I add ", for example as described in Section 2.3" to the
parenthetical phrase?

>
>
> ****
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 2 appears to ignore 1+1 protection, which would (similar to
> "Steering")****
>
> use pre-established protection paths from an ingress LSR/node to each
> egress****
>
> LSR/node but would send that traffic both ways at all times.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> The main differences between this approach and Steering are:****
>
> ** **
>
> o             the need to notify the ingress node is eliminated as a
> consideration for ****
>
>                 protection switching latency****
>
> o             there is (therefore) no reliance on the existence of a
> failure detection ****
>
>                 method that is able to notify the ingress of a failure in
> the ring****
>
> o             double bandwidth *is* required ****
>
> ** **
>
> This is carried forward in all subsequent sections/subsections.
>
>
>
yw>> 1+1 protection is a linear protection methodology, and Section 2 is
describing basic Transport Network ring protection as defined in  the ITU -
which include Steering and Wrapping.  1+1 does not seem to be popular in
rings, since historically SDH seemed to shun this alternative. We do
reference 1+1 transmission in section 3.2 and in the conclusions.

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Sections 2.1 and 2.2 do not exactly provide an "apples-to-apples"
> comparison****
>
> basis in the bullets relating to "considerations" in each subsection.  In
> order to ****
>
> allow this comparison, both sections would need to provide an indication
> of the****
>
> order of protection paths required *in a protection domain*. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Because – in the "Wrapping" case – it is necessary to provide protection
> SPME****
>
> for each node and link (in a ring the number of links is exactly the same
> as the ****
>
> number of nodes), the number of protection SPME is O(2N).****
>
> ** **
>
> For the "Steering" case, however, it is necessary to provide protection
> SPME****
>
> for each ingress node to each egress node (except for the last one) –
> which is****
>
> O(N^2).  This statement is actually made in the introductory text in
> section 2.4.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would suggest either adding a bullet in section 2.2 and including forward
> ****
>
> references in these bullets to the analysis in section 2.4, or removing
> the bullet****
>
> in section 2.1.
>
>
>
yw>> Could you please specify which bullet you are suggesting to delete?
Thanx

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 2.3 appears to assume that the desired protection scheme will be
> based****
>
> on "Steering" rather than "Wrapping."  This assumption is made without any
> ****
>
> effort/analysis to justify why this assumption is made (at least as far as
> I can see). ****
>
> ** **
>
> If that is the intention, minimally, section 2.3 should start with a
> statement that ****
>
> this is the assumption made.****
>
> ** **
>
> Reading further, however, subsequent subsection 2.3.2 describes how the
> SPME****
>
> concept – as outlined in the introductory text of section 2.3 – may be
> used for the****
>
> "Wrapping" approach.****
>
> ** **
>
> The confusion arises as a result of figure 3 and the text that describes
> it in the ****
>
> preceding paragraph, as this figure/text is what most contributes to an
> impression****
>
> that an SPME would start at the ingress and end at an egress.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would suggest that this figure and the preceding paragraph would find a
> better ****
>
> home on section 2.3.1.  This would also align subsections of section 2.3
> better as ****
>
> there is a similar figure in section 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4.
>
>
>
yw>> Will move the paragraph and figure, as you suggest.

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The last paragraph in introductory text in section 2.3 (immediately prior
> to the****
>
> start of section 2.3.1) appears to ignore the case where the egress LSR
> would****
>
> use labels to "steer" delivery of labeled packets it receives over the
> SPME to****
>
> specific egress ports (of the egress LSR).  ****
>
> ** **
>
> These labels would most likely not be a part of the label stack received
> by the ****
>
> ingress LSR (there is no need for these labels to be known outside of the
> ring)****
>
> and would have to be pushed onto the stack before pushing on the label for
> an****
>
> SPME to the egress LSR/node.
>

yw>> Do you have a suggestion on how better to include this consideration?

> ****
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe the text in the last paragraph of section 2.3.4 is incorrect in
> stating that****
>
> protected traffic might not share the same protection path in both
> directions.****
>
> ** **
>
> If both LSR-B and LSR-F detect that LSR-A is not available, then both will
> use the****
>
> protection SPME between LSR-B and LSR-F.****
>
> ** **
>
> If both LSR-A and LSR-E detect that LSR-F is not available, then both will
> use the****
>
> protection SPME between LSR-A and LSR-E.****
>
> ** **
>
> If both LSR-A and LSR-F detect that the link between them is not
> available, then****
>
> both will use the protection SPME between them.****
>
> ** **
>
> All that is required is that both LSRs in each case agree as to the nature
> of the ****
>
> failure (node or link) – which may be easily and consistently determined by
> ****
>
> monitoring the status of the working and protection SPME. ** **
>
> ** **
>
> While it is possible for the end-point LSRs in each case to have an
> inconsistent****
>
> view of the nature of the failure, this inconsistency should be short
> lived (based****
>
> on the periodicity of OAM monitoring of SPMEs).****
>
> ** **
>
> Depending on the OAM monitoring periodicity used – and the length of links
> in ****
>
> the ring – this inconsistency may exist for a period of time that is less
> than the ****
>
> latency to be expected for "Steering" based protection.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Note that this is a major issue with the current text as it impacts on
> analysis in*
>
> *subsequent section 2.4 and the conclusion/recommendations of this
> document.*
>
>
>
yw>> This statement is the result of review comments that we received
during an earlier review of the document, and I am wary of removing it from
the document at this late stage in the review process.  In any case, there
are other considerations for limiting both types of protection.  I am sure
that your analysis is correct although I am not sure that I understand your
emphatic objection to the text and how it is related to the analysis in
section 2.4.

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The analysis in section 2.4 is incomplete or based on an incorrect
> assertion made****
>
> in section 2.3.4.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the alternative suggested in section 2.3.4 were used, the number of
> SPME that****
>
> will be required would be O(4N) – which is still O(N) and would be less
> than O(N^2)****
>
> for fewer than the 16-node limit assumption made for the analysis.
>
>
>
yw>> This is correct and is certainly correct when the comparison is
between O(2N) and O(N^2).  Therefore whether the statement (reiterated in
parenthesis here) is correct or not does not really affect the
conclusions.  This is based on the simplicity of Steering and the avoidance
of wasted resources by transmitting the traffic twice over certain links.

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph in the introductory text of
> section 2.4,****
>
> the sentence mentions the use of additional resources but does not mention
> the****
>
> additional latency.****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there any reason for the omission?
>
>
>
yw>> not really

>
>
> ** **
>
> I suggest removing the text in this sentence that starts with "even
> though" as****
>
> it might otherwise be necessary to attempt an exhaustive list of
> detractions.
>
>
>
yw>> I have no problem with this suggestion

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Also in the last paragraph of the introductory text in section 2.4, I
> imagine that****
>
> the case where one or more pairs of SPME may be eliminated because of LSRs
> ****
>
> that are not ingress-egress pairs is most likely of trivial value in any
> deployment****
>
> involving a ring topology.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps the last sentence in the last paragraph of this text in section
> 2.4 could be****
>
> removed?
>
>
>
yw>> Again, I have no problem with this

>
>
> ** **
>
> NITs:****
>
> ====****
>
> ** **
>
> In the Introduction section, 5th bullet in (or after) the 2nd paragraph –
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>    " Impact of signaling and routing information exchanged during****
>
>       protection, in presence of control plane."****
>
> ** **
>
> - the phrase "in presence of control plane" should probably be "in *the* *
> ***
>
> presence of *a* control plane."
>
>
>
yw>> will fix

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the 2nd bullet in section 2.1, I believe it is the case that O(2N) =
> O(N).
>

yw>> while this is true, I think it is significant to mention the 2N

>   ****
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the 1st paragraph of section 2.3.1, where it says "there is always an
> alternative****
>
> path …" – at the SPME level (as described in this document), there's
> always *exactly *
>
> *one*  alternative path.
>
yw>> This is not 100% true.  What is true is that there is exactly on
alternative path within the ring (there may be additional alternatives that
go outside the ring). This is why I did not originally add the "exactly" in
the first place.

> ****
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the 1st bullet in section 2.4, I believe it is the case that O(2N^2) =
> O(N^2).
>
>
>
yw>> see above, same applies to next statement.

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the 1st and 2nd bullets in section 2.4, I believe it is the case that
> O(2N) = O(N). ****
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Thanx and BR,
yaacov

*Still looking for new opportunity*