Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 15:19 UTC
Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.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 D3045130DD0; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 08:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 YNo-Nk-Gj5S7; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C0C126F72; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 08:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id x26-v6so4089918iog.11; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 08:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LyGEEnI+8Gw3uOHH3bSA+x3A9ZKsOYoc+FcD96RmEis=; b=CV6W61uJbenJJzgraFv9nJztjOrRwe3bt71M0dmroB/yMoHsOyTbhD3d8xXcFtQTx2 sjhkjlrGO2WYm+DkthUi6JeKQkfYeNg73BUs3FuMrs1dqLxWxKL+zELrAmBpR893AjQp M75jFhYnzFh7lVE5r4PsM0/xgNbNw6/Zoz6FEuiv/QbtyU39LcQjSwMxUMpl0Imdumjy s6hRgZwq5fceWkU/CobpuTx7e30GlKk/bIozTao4UAPsutu+AvhBb/EYY3rJ275iDfzl uEZvR9ErFPtWL2i5LkrStLkKDm5LPmTNLry/OZTWxciUr89K6cNhzsgg3PYNKXrHvk7O EFEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LyGEEnI+8Gw3uOHH3bSA+x3A9ZKsOYoc+FcD96RmEis=; b=QpFoV42HsHzOZLZZx4n/Y212FDvqcakpL7jH40w3LzBGTo3eSSe8i9NihluiIJ88bZ vmGRE6gaH/mSYXyc4xWtZuIcr+6I90SyFTSrienS8R0fEa4oc7ZZNMPAqFmEQosZhrqe e+SeS0gPC/EP8HcxvD5ndpwbEAzOKVCjN7kqoTnhZQ9lsIYUg4XbFIcBRTgu9RMIE7qC fO0A65dWl3zWHQe6H6twmed/Ee0XeH4Ihb2ReptUpC9hn9aGutTXbjfADayAb3xeuX5x 3OkcxkHB1r6KEhHOlPOyHi/iXyLvDGrfVyt67FQ6jwo1QoqHUhAT1Es1MNOK4xJP3ybr XVqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojLzogSHnsyZd4S0n/mUI8SHKjtVRggsyxIfhZ56IP5GN3RNx8f 8E8IKfUfS8+bIjDS/l6nTImjdarxNCuaGXu6EM0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60YUWazSViGtR2gnvNbvjY9C4IoDnE/C2CY+7gBmxnU+iE37HSrluhXzqRegQBD9nBore/n58mPWMzIgMugWkA=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e702:: with SMTP id b2-v6mr7702230ioh.37.1538407181904; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2ccba50e-2032-bad6-b91d-cb583bd8cac6@nokia.com> <CAEFuwkixedEdM9t4iBytMBd=xNPmmuHxh=F8hmsGZ3Th12+BzA@mail.gmail.com> <0989548c-7dd3-712b-2f24-7ee2e2c3827c@nokia.com> <CAEFuwkiNgGLGP+UBVxVKJ0OYnCfbkO+7N_phJ=_CPSrF5e56HA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB3943D6EFCA2CA393352CE2A3D51A0@BYAPR05MB3943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB39439CEB3E275F8F903B8ED8D51C0@BYAPR05MB3943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <99d861ea-dd4a-b9bd-b70f-b7265942b7c0@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <99d861ea-dd4a-b9bd-b70f-b7265942b7c0@nokia.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 20:49:30 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkhYku7n9YYfEyvbD_21MQP6FCEay9nFzhkz3CYJq_q-rA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
To: "Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR)" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Cc: "Shraddha@Juniper" <shraddha@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098f02a05772c5512"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/giN6DaqURuIg0Kx088z8kaG2HPI>
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: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:19:46 -0000
Hi Martin, Thanks for pushing this ahead. Best regards -Pushpasis On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:43 PM Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> wrote: > All, > > thanks for the update, I'm pushing this forward. > Note that the quote for 8124 is not exactly that one but this can be > handled at a later stage. > > -m > > Le 2018-09-19 à 10:50, Shraddha Hegde a écrit : > > Martin, > > > > I have fixed the typos and also added more description to clarify a few > items. > > > > Pls see details > > > > Section 4.2 (and subsections) is (are) a bit difficult to > > read/understand because of the typos but also because of the way it's > > written. > > > > Section 4.2.1. > > Do you mean ECMP FRR rather than simply ECMP (as section 4.2.3. seems to > > suggest)? > > If so, please take this into account while addressing typos listed below. > > [Pushpasis] 4.2.1 is for ECMP. ECMPs do not count as alternates. These > rules cover all scenarios but related to alternates only. > > But, I will let Shraddha confirm that.. > > <shraddha> Fixed the text to read "ECMP FRR" > > > > Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5, seem to be linked to 4.2.1.. > > Wouldn't it be better to switch 4.2.4. and 4.2.5.? Alternatively can't > > these three sections in fact be subsections of 4.2.1 ? > > [Pushpasis] Shraddha can you take look and let us know if that is okay. > > <shraddha> Thanks for the suggestion. Chaged the paraphasing sections to > subsections of 4.2.1 > > > > Although Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5 seem to paraphrase 4.2.1., I > > read one sentence which does not appear in the pseudo algorithm: > > If there are two ASBRs with different type2 cost, the higher cost > > ASBR is pruned. > > So I am not sure to understand when this condition/action comes into > > play. Could you clarify? > > [Pushpasis] Again will let Shraddha comment on it. > > <Shraddha> Added more description to "type 1 type 2 cost" section. > > Pls check if it looks better. > > > > Section 4.2.4 > > It is not clear which inequalities will apply in that case. > > <Shraddha> Added statement to clarify the inequalities to be used. > > > > In the same way as above, Section 4.2.5 seems to say a more than Step 5 > > of the pseudo algorithm. Could you clarify when the extra conditions it > > describes come into play? Or said differently, shouldn't step 5 be > > reworked to be more complete? If you do so, please rework that step > > incorporating the types of changes/rephrasing I have suggested for the > > other steps (see typos below). > > <Shraddha> Updated step 5. pls check. > > > > > > 1a. if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area > > non-backbone path go to step 2. > > do you mean "belong to" rather than "are"? > > <shraddha>if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area > > and belong to non-backbone go to step 2. > > > > 2. If cost type (type1/type2) advertised by alternate > > ASBR same as primary > > Do you mean: > > 2. Compare cost types (type1/type2) advertised by alternate ASBR and > > by the primary ASBR > > [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look. > > <shraddha> Fixed > > > > > > 3. If cost type is type1 > > 3a. If cost is same, program ECMP and return. > > 3b. else go to step 5. > > Do you mean: > > 3. If cost types are type1, compare costs advertised by alternate > ASBR > > and by the primary ASBR > > 3a. If costs are the same then program ECMP and return. > > 3b. else go to step 5. > > [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look. > > <Shraddha> Fixed > > > > > > 4 If cost type is type 2 > > 4a. If cost is different, skip alternate ASBR and > > consider next ASBR. > > 4b. If type2 cost is same, proceed to step 4c to compare > > compare type 1 cost. > > 4c. If type1 cost is also same program ECMP and return. > > 4d. If type 1 cost is different go to step 5. > > Do you mean: > > 4 If cost types are type2, compare costs advertised by alternate > ASBR > > and by the primary ASBR > > 4a. If costs are different, skip alternate ASBR and > > consider next ASBR. > > 4b. If cost are the same, proceed to step 4c to compare > > compare type1 costs. > > 4c. If type1 costs are also same program ECMP and return. > > 4d. If type1 costs are different go to step 5. > > [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look. > > <shraddha> Fixed > > > > While selecting alternate ASBR for loop evaluation for LFA, these > > rules should be applied and ensured that the alternate neighbor does > > not loop the traffic back. > > I'm not sure about the meaning of the latter part of that sentence ("and > > ensured ...") > > [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look. I think it means.. "... these > rules should be applied and to ensure that the alternate neighbor does not > loop ..." > > <shraddha> fixed the text > > > > > > > > > > I have posted -07 version.Pls take a look and let me know if you have > further comments. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:02 PM > > To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>; Vigoureux, Martin > (Nokia - FR) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> > > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs < > rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; RTGWG < > rtgwg@ietf.org> > > Subject: RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06 > > > > Martin, > > > > Apologise missing the e-mail from Pushpasis. > > I'll look at the comments and update the draft in a day or two. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:25 PM > > To: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> > > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs < > rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; RTGWG < > rtgwg@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06 > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > I am extremely sorry. I forgot to follow up with co-authors on this. > Buried with day job. I will try to close it with co-authors at the earliest > possible. > > > > Best regards, > > -Pushpasis > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:33 PM Martin Vigoureux < > martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Authors, > >> > >> am I right in thinking that the ball is still in your camp and you > >> need Shraddha to look at some of the comments? > >> The draft has been in Revised I-D Needed for 5 months now. > >> > >> -m > >> > >> Le 2018-06-19 à 11:00, Pushpasis Sarkar a écrit : > >>> Hi Martin, > >>> > >>> Once again sorry for the delay. Please find answers to some of your > >>> points inline. > >>> > >>> Hi Shraddha, > >>> > >>> Please find attached the XML draft for the next revision with > >>> changes taken care by Uma and myself. Please add your changes and > >>> reply back on the comments on OSPF sections that I have requested > >>> you to take look at >
- Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Pushpasis Sarkar
- AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-… Martin Vigoureux
- RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Uma Chunduri
- Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Pushpasis Sarkar
- RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Shraddha Hegde
- RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-pre… Pushpasis Sarkar