RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Thu, 18 January 2018 01:32 UTC
Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 4FFF312EADE; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 lpMvWlPEek9W; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 962F412D890; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8AA5CD3143874; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:32:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:32:34 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.170]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.204]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:32:30 -0800
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Topic: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Index: AQHTbsc0vIkAxUibik+bEdqNui2TGqM2tlIggEEZ+gCAAUFgAA==
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:32:29 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268541353093B@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAHzoHbvqNfm9Bk=qu+L5BT8uWOyQK2h3AhzYebSTZtQMV4csdw@mail.gmail.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1C@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAHzoHbs3NBvZQjM6A7rF5P2JmAdcWZQjFf_cvNiUi_vrkUxKJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHzoHbs3NBvZQjM6A7rF5P2JmAdcWZQjFf_cvNiUi_vrkUxKJg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/UNn1Rk-un1O0pu8Vih-H0D2hFkc>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:32:39 -0000
Hi Chris and Co-authors, Something to this spirit before the last bullet point in Section 2. o SPF computation order: A SPF trigger can be common to multiple IGP areas or levels (e.g., IS-IS Level1/Level2) or for multiple address families with multi-topologies. There is no specified order for SPF computation today and it is implementation dependent. In such scenarios, if the order of SPF computation done in A and B for each area/level/topology/SPF-algorithm is different, there is a possibility for a micro-loop to appear. BR, -- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Bowers [mailto:chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:49 PM To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement Uma, Could you propose some specific text to add to the document to address your comment? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> wrote: > Support and have a following comment and want to see this addressed. > > > > Section 2: > > > > I saw SPF computation time has been discussed, while it is true this > is relatively a smaller issue when compared to mismatch in SPF delay > with different trigger algos across various vendors; it depends on the > size of the network + mix of legacy and new nodes. > > Any ways, my comment: > > I would like to see add one more bullet point with regard to SPF > computation order impact on the micro loops for a trigger i.e., a > trigger which is common to multiple levels/areas, multiple topologies > and multiple SPF-algorithms (in extreme case). > > There is no specified order today and its implementation dependent > and IMO this too would be a significant contributor (of course, not > asking to specify the order here) and visible once the SPF > delay/trigger-algo issue is fixed across. So this is worth being listed here. > > > > > > -- > > Uma C. > > > > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:19 AM > To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org> > Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement > > > > RTGWG, > > This email starts the two week WG last call for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-stateme > nt/ > > > Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this > > informational document, along with the reasoning behind that support > or > > opposition. > > > > IPR: > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond > to > > this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > The > > response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will > > not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from > > each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. > > > > This last call will end on Thursday, December 21st. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris and Jeff
- WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-st… Chris Bowers
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Uma Chunduri
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Acee Lindem (acee)
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… stephane.litkowski
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… bruno.decraene
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Martin Horneffer
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Chris Bowers
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Chris Bowers
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… Uma Chunduri
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… stephane.litkowski
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-p… stephane.litkowski