RE: WGLC for draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Mon, 21 December 2015 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA571A8711 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:47:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 cr8LZMDIYaag for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:47:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E03561A873C for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.198.148) by CO2PR05MB618.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.198.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.355.16; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:47:17 +0000
Received: from CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.198.148]) by CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.198.148]) with mapi id 15.01.0355.012; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:47:17 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture@tools.ietf.org" <draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture@tools.ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture
Thread-Index: AQHRLfeL2ZFlSXjXVUi8oWyUS97WNZ66/DiAgBhFMyA=
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:47:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR05MB619C358B509AE4030EB40EFA9E40@CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <56608847.9040505@gmail.com> <5661B73D.2030802@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5661B73D.2030802@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cbowers@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.13]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR05MB618; 5:7fKyg5TfY72ChnY2S0eKdj9Rx2AgUkm6Ymc0mS73Sw7UbQMaitHJcTsPiZE1oQ2InZgmx5X74Gz1FIescAsCJTV5cwB5Hvh8au46+GVeUZhNTX5jbdUXhXpnMCT2eY7XEVphgv3JnwGoBQucEM9ceg==; 24:ENVpuFCdFswGEk15EGA1jwMEeo58s8ur1duRHoZzubkvAiQnKHCr+jhcbYaeghQTdCs824pkAh5udojl48zxPJuMFRygMd0+mokV0ZqJqrg=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR05MB618;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR05MB6187AD060E898AF36F8B295A9E40@CO2PR05MB618.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:CO2PR05MB618; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR05MB618;
x-forefront-prvs: 079756C6B9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(13464003)(189002)(51444003)(199003)(107886002)(66066001)(189998001)(122556002)(87936001)(86362001)(105586002)(586003)(230783001)(19580395003)(3846002)(2201001)(5001960100002)(106356001)(106116001)(40100003)(97736004)(76176999)(6116002)(5001770100001)(15975445007)(102836003)(99286002)(54356999)(101416001)(5002640100001)(50986999)(92566002)(5003600100002)(2501003)(10400500002)(1220700001)(5008740100001)(33656002)(19580405001)(11100500001)(81156007)(76576001)(2900100001)(74316001)(5004730100002)(1096002)(77096005)(2950100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB618; H:CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Dec 2015 14:47:17.5823 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR05MB618
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/1w6mrhqQxDN7YfhcOtImjZbg_mM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:47:25 -0000

Steward,

I don't agree with the initial statement that the technique forms two trees rooted at a single node.  The designation of the GADAG root plays an important role in computing the red and blue MRT trees.  However,  red and blue MRT trees are computed using forward SPFs rooted at each source, which follow the directed links on the GADAG and do not propagate past the GADAG root.  The net result of these computations can be viewed as producing red and blue MRT trees rooted at each destination.  In any case, these trees are not rooted at the GADAG root.  

Anil pointed out that the pseudo-code in draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm didn't always make a clear distinction between the root of the forward SPF computation and the GADAG root, so we tried to clarify that in this set of changes.

https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/commit/ada619050ec9d773b7919a1c622f068d5a5a5e88

Are there places in the architecture document where similar clarifications should be made?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:55 AM
To: draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture

Another couple of comments on this draft.

The technique you use of selecting a single node and forming two trees rooted at that node should really be noted up front in the summary.

A consequence of this is that when you add a node or when the root node fails the trees and hence the FRR paths may change. To some extent this happens in LFA and RLFA, although the changes will tend to be confined to a local region, whereas with MTR I think that the  node may move to a completely different region. If that is the case then that has an impact on the FRR traffic management. By way of comparison, NV is the least impacted by this approach and the SR approach is impacted as much as LFA, but has the option of correcting this will a little effort.

I think that there really needs to be some text on the matter in the architecture spec.

- Stewart

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg