RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03

"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com> Tue, 23 June 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <anil.sn@huawei.com>
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 856C81A9102; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Z1crLjPoZgyh; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5478C1A8F3D; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUG42236; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:59:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:59:19 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.152]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:59:15 +0800
From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com>
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Gábor Sándor Enyedi <gabor.sandor.enyedi@ericsson.com>, "Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com" <Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@juniper.net>, "abishek@ece.arizona.edu" <abishek@ece.arizona.edu>
Subject: RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03
Thread-Topic: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03
Thread-Index: AdCsIyHvkAdI4JvZScukBh5syZhVqAARUGPQAE6/CrAAB3bpkAADC8lg
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:59:14 +0000
Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB44303@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB4412B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB29219107600DC4002B04D4AA9A20@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB44296@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB292587A4F3860411C9D4F72A9A00@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB292587A4F3860411C9D4F72A9A00@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.212.150]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB44303nkgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/FWr0bsQCtE0UHA4AZqlFwOkz6_E>
Cc: "rtgwg-owner@ietf.org" <rtgwg-owner@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:59:25 -0000

Chris,

                Yes it definitely makes sense,  thanks I should have thought about this.

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel


From: Chris Bowers [mailto:cbowers@juniper.net]
Sent: 23 June 2015 20:19
To: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Gábor Sándor Enyedi; Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com; Alia Atlas; abishek@ece.arizona.edu
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtgwg-owner@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03

Anil,

Reusing the topology below, R (the gadag_root) will have block_id=0 while A,B,C,D and E will have block_id=1. so the first OR'd condition in In_Common_Block(R,y) will always be false when determining if R is in the same block as A,B,C,D, or E.  The third OR'd condition will also be false because R.localroot = None.  However, the second OR'd condition will be true because R = B.localroot (for example), returning true for In_Common_Block(R,B). Does this make sense?

Chris
             [E]----|
            (5,0)   |
              |     |
              |     |
             [R]   [D]---[C]
            (0,0) (4,0) (3,0)
              |           |
              |           |
             [A]---------[B]
            (1,0)       (2,0)

From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) [mailto:anil.sn@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 6:04 AM
To: Chris Bowers; Gábor Sándor Enyedi; Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com<mailto:Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>; Alia Atlas; abishek@ece.arizona.edu<mailto:abishek@ece.arizona.edu>
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-owner@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-owner@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03

Hi Chirs,

gadag_root.localroot will remain as  None at the end of algorithm and gadag_root.block_id will be 0 (rest of the nodes in the block will be 1 higher than gadag_root.block_id)
Below psudocode will return false while comparing a node in a block and gadag_root.

                Please correct me if I am wrong.

In_Common_Block(x, y)
  if ( (x.block_id is y.block_id)
       or (x is y.localroot) or (y is x.localroot) )
     return true
  return false

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel