RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03
"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 11:16 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 879E71ACF0A; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 PkDzxAepVmDL; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:16:37 -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 9800B1ACF08; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXF28927; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:16:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:16:32 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.152]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:16:25 +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: AdCifUFAAQ1JZlPETESLX6aiRMOLaAATVnnwACjeOWA=
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:16:25 +0000
Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB437FD@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB436B4@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB2925A1254FC0C5726AA7372A9BE0@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB2925A1254FC0C5726AA7372A9BE0@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_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB437FDnkgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/O5VZCkPqAb0O5JPNEpiUf31kQKU>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:16:42 -0000
Hi Chris, "for each interface intf of x" in Figure 8: Computing Low-Point value & "for each link (x, w)" in Figure 7: Basic Depth-First Search algorithm is based on section : "5.1. Interface Ordering" ? If yes can it be made more specific, since this very important part of logic, if not let me know how & where section : "5.1. Interface Ordering" is used in the algorithm. 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: 10 June 2015 00:29 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, Thanks for the suggestion to clarify the use of root to mean gadag_root or spf_root in the pseudo-code, as well as the typo. I made the changes on github. The diff can be found at: https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/commit/ada619050ec9d773b7919a1c622f068d5a5a5e88 Tell me if you agree with these changes. With respect to comment#3, if ((D is F) or (D.order_proxy is F)), then there are several cases to consider: 1) If the link from S to F is a cut-link, a) if this is a single cut-link between S and F, then there is no alternate b) if there are parallel cut-links between S and F, then one can, for example, ECMP across the remaining links, noting that there is no link protection. 2) if the link from S to F is not a cut-link, then at least one of the MRT next-hops for D (red or blue) will not be the same as the primary next-hop for D. In which case, one should use the color that is not the primary next-hop as the alternate, noting that the alternate does not provide node protection. I agree that the existing pseudo-code is not very clear here. I am planning to update this part of the pseudo-code in the near future to make it clearer, but hopefully the explanation above suffices for the moment. Chris From: rtgwg [mailto:mailman-bounces@mail.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:27 AM To: Gábor Sándor Enyedi; Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com<mailto:Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>; Alia Atlas; Chris Bowers; 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: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Hi Authors, As discussed before, Please find my review comments : Comment 1: Can we rename parameter which is passed to these functions as real SPF root or GADAG root ? Run_DFS(node root) Run_Lowpoint(node root) Compute_Localroot(root, root) Construct_GADAG_via_Lowpoint(topology, root) Add_Undirected_Links(topo, root) Assign_Block_ID(root, max_block_id) Compute_MRT_NextHops(x, root) Comment 2: Here parenthesis are not matching, four '(' and five ')'. This must be typo mistake. 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 Comment 3: Is it possible to rephrase "if an MRT doesn't use primary_intf" What does the sentence "MRT doesn't use primary_intf" mean ? Dose it mean neither Red interface nor Blue interface is same as primary interface ? What does the sentence "return that MRT color" means ? Select_Alternates_Internal(S, D, F, primary_intf, D_lower, D_higher, D_topo_order) //When D==F, we can do only link protection if ((D is F) or (D.order_proxy is F)) if an MRT doesn't use primary_intf indicate alternate is not node-protecting return that MRT color Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel
- draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
- RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03 Chris Bowers