Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic
Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 20:00 UTC
Return-Path: <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AB812086E; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:00:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
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 s5xWMqvQiJtl; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr680131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.68.131]) (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 8E562120836; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:00:17 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=MHxYDn/vDPIGC5aWt/bZc4PCBeGTePA98irVaG/rxxmyOaqIXzAlJIjJwwijZOb3WpgO7r5KUmDvjuOTIp8svT2BSf2XlvNfqix1Z8Ruwb9diZifuMG04JkBWKb68I/Wa1SFAqYNrFWZJLgPNRPGFxWL5ep2N7Zl4SV7WsSVWBXRrqD1tdaqhZWKBQbiTimWpVTkbzKkKkO9TbEiSBUBD5x7VxK3C0xj4+uaau8ICadiBuMeLjE1mL10SH4JAGvPOGjykLVgI3JdLTJhbY6GJ0MwCqxYxrgdpsiNVmXjr6BslraXaBjKgLhrAmuhjGW3iWqTeK7Fy7TGn9XgIKtN6g==
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-SenderADCheck; bh=x9++DIh3l4Aejt6eFamOUwvs7GIagUOKZa3AW6WUjMQ=; b=Yfp1yMjXkx3qDtjFFbq7GhYDd7U5sndN2tr3sM5RBDy5fu6+3NV9iUKDPCNkB8l01IlTH3dvFg9YabaXzGIXCsfRxKfEEUyW78k6iAiGhfRH4TFopiT/wY1iHb6ZKzwprGEHfMMTnegYvVzX40nYv85Ddi3X0kXuCt/S1qXUFKefi/cKZUxaz0U78CBVXUphcKYdwoQUuIMXTlZdPZeamRmBoEBM8KcCk38BAogjjwIvyTmLgtOlUwkBouojYCoeKRy8R2rktWZsh7uCl8+YSWfp4rILn0GbHI6qt6UxK1sRqZsEWTwc7lZIG//9NAXZO87OTg8OHwnRVoYpx+UwQA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=x9++DIh3l4Aejt6eFamOUwvs7GIagUOKZa3AW6WUjMQ=; b=TG5y3ZZznDsb+MIrRto5R/MKKP4Z/5wFBxA7wBFctvwXa4aJkmcoBT3F+fEC66lyjRE1NYC9yheK8HVLtPACtOB0AVoRpeBKAMG8XCT6I7F4BQt586ysRwFP6Z5Ks3B4fPkvL8VSQSauDBGb/N1k0W17sfkQzopzUSsxO0wZsLM=
Received: from BY5PR13MB3206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.255.154.151) by BY5PR13MB3410.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.255.138.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2623.6; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:00:12 +0000
Received: from BY5PR13MB3206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3112:50e0:f53:2e5f]) by BY5PR13MB3206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3112:50e0:f53:2e5f%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2623.002; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:00:12 +0000
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic
Thread-Topic: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic
Thread-Index: AQHVwbYerGeI0Ru2y0SsU2PKN5XBVQ==
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:00:12 +0000
Message-ID: <0485C9EC-624C-4E4A-A199-9F62B0CA7B0A@futurewei.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=yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com;
x-originating-ip: [12.111.81.71]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 40277cd3-1ddf-4edf-c5c4-08d790878b41
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR13MB3410:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR13MB3410148E8D6A09F6F1A70AACE1230@BY5PR13MB3410.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0271483E06
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(39840400004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(66946007)(316002)(6512007)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(450100002)(2906002)(110136005)(64756008)(66476007)(36756003)(6486002)(66556008)(66446008)(44832011)(966005)(478600001)(5660300002)(26005)(33656002)(86362001)(76116006)(2616005)(6506007)(186003)(8936002)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY5PR13MB3410; H:BY5PR13MB3206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0485C9EC624C4E4AA1999F62B0CA7B0Afutureweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 40277cd3-1ddf-4edf-c5c4-08d790878b41
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jan 2020 20:00:12.6123 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: t62miHoiJ07GBnYTOrxhOJ5Z1c5WQEABsc10FS4F82/eY0tFGXvFkft0KIBf6OXFZizWfJ0Gl6PK4SNQYsEz+g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR13MB3410
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/8rcaMEpiPALTkBInCocSAjM6Fd8>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:00:30 -0000
Hi authors, Happy New Year! I did a review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-10 for shepherd write-up. Thanks for working on this informational document, and it’s very useful to improve routing convergence. I have the following comments and would like you to consider. General: * Throughout the document, both BGP PIC and BGP-PIC are used. I’m ok with either one, please keep it consistent. * Regarding references, idnits is giving the following warnings: == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls has been published as RFC 8660 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02 * There are links to references in the document are broken/not working, please go through and fix them. * Other idnits warnings: == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) * Section 2.1.2: some clarification needed here. When the primary next-hop fails, my understanding is that BGP PIC will first use other primary next-hops if available, e.g ECMP before using the pre-computed backup paths. Also “The existence of a secondary next-hop is clear for the following reason:”, this needs some explanations, and this is different from for example pre-computed backup paths using IP FRR. * Section 7 title is “Properties”, and it seems to me this section is more like a summary. I’d suggest combining section 7 and 10, then change the title to summary or something. No strong opinion on this one though. * Throughout the document, lots of paragraphs are missing the ending “.” Nits: * The following are editorial nits, please consider fixing them. I’m using the line number from idnits. 136 techniques, multiple techniques have been proposed to allow for 137 BGP to advertise more than one path for a given prefix I’m not sure it should be “allow” or “allow for”. 169 o Ingress PE, "iPE": A BGP speaker that learns about a prefix 170 through a IBGP peer and chooses an egress PE as the next-hop for 171 the prefix. Should be “an iBGP peer”. Also this definition is not clear to me. I’d also suggestion add one for “ePE”. 239 o A shared hierarchical forwarding Chain: It is not uncommon to see Should be “chain”. 270 This section describes the required functionality in the forwarding 271 and control planes to support BGP-PIC described in this document “functionalities”, also missing ending “.”. 334 VPN-IP2, respectively. Suppose that BGP-NH1 and BGP-NH2 are resolved 335 via the IGP prefixes IGP-IP1 and IGP-P2, where each happen to have 2 336 ECMP paths with IGP-NH1 and IGP-NH2 reachable via the interfaces I1 337 and I2, respectively. Suppose that local labels (whether LDP [4] or 338 segment routing [13]) on the downstream LSRs for IGP-IP1 are IGP-L11 339 and IGP-L12 while for IGP-P2 are IGP-L21 and IGP-L22. As such, the 340 routing table at iPE is as follows: I think you meant “IGP-IP2”, instead of “IGP-P2”. Thanks, Yingzhen
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Ahmed Bashandy
- Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Yingzhen Qu
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Gyan Mishra
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Robert Raszuk
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Gyan Mishra
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Robert Raszuk
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Gyan Mishra
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic Yingzhen Qu