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, 1 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>om>; Vigoureux, Martin
> (Nokia - FR) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
> > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs <
> rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>gt;; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>; 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>gt;; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>; 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
>