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

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Tue, 23 June 2015 14:48 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 7AA541B2CB6; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 G256DC9Q4Ijo; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0115.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545261B2CAE; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BY1PR0501MB1574.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.203.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.195.15; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:48:40 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.01.0195.005; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:48:39 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com>, 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/CrAAB3bpkA==
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:48:39 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR05MB292587A4F3860411C9D4F72A9A00@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB4412B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB29219107600DC4002B04D4AA9A20@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB44296@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB44296@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY1PR0501MB1574; 5:Jrp6BG4cMbXIXIqUSXjJUsOWnnV9rGPQkDmucUefQCKsiVv77JR8PO/xGaWZ7ZT+sdg5vgFMSdaLQ6IEKzvhPA+S7+TB7IimoqyD0qP44zOUihvracmihMzHyW9wsIEOyHimrAQ3wrfckYUMtP/0/A==; 24:eZDTQ2RVv8zFzOrJ3jOAO931JhKp0HVyu55Gaza1IyhpqjZdZXk707Hg4o/pA1Zy7cQMBd0G2AlCcYoOn1+KyHB6QPeYqVV+LCfM9PeS3uo=; 20:dom4MGcVeXizzg1WE8Xn4H+5xhQaAW9yyF+d9MVNwIP6wjLPAUgLn68Hc9ctLFhnq7oHLjI85ZtHzTVjn2LP8A==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1574;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY1PR0501MB15747F11E3FE95022C4BFA6FA9A00@BY1PR0501MB1574.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1574; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1574;
x-forefront-prvs: 06167FAD59
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(40100003)(16236675004)(19300405004)(66066001)(33656002)(50986999)(87936001)(86362001)(19625215002)(74316001)(1941001)(2656002)(2171001)(54356999)(76176999)(19609705001)(122556002)(230783001)(189998001)(5001770100001)(5002640100001)(62966003)(46102003)(5003600100002)(2950100001)(76576001)(99286002)(77156002)(102836002)(2900100001)(15975445007)(5001960100002)(92566002)(5001920100001)(77096005)(2501003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1574; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BLUPR05MB292587A4F3860411C9D4F72A9A00BLUPR05MB292namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Jun 2015 14:48:39.0980 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1574
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/LmXfDtnhJZfNs2zbDM3vlIkeoS4>
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 14:48:45 -0000

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; Alia Atlas; abishek@ece.arizona.edu
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org; 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