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

"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com> Mon, 15 June 2015 04:53 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 7F14E1B312E; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:53:48 -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 DY-IskzwCkfl; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:53:44 -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 EA44A1B311D; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:53:42 -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 BXJ36762; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:53:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 05:53:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.152]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:53:33 +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: AdCifUFAAQ1JZlPETESLX6aiRMOLaAATVnnwACjeOWAAbkesEAB/8ONA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB43C1A@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB436B4@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB2925A1254FC0C5726AA7372A9BE0@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB437FD@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR05MB292BAD31261D2FB5D81E2F6A9BB0@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB292BAD31261D2FB5D81E2F6A9BB0@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_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB43C1Ankgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/yzCtY98y9sb8GJ4zw3nBjAT3mBM>
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:53:48 -0000

Chris,

                I think the changes are fine.

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: 13 June 2015 00:16
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,

I updated the github version to clarify this point.  The diff is here:
https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/commit/042450051d39cf4be99ba0cde7b9e017be05d282

Where interface ordering is required, I used:
foreach ordered_interface intf of x

Where interface ordering is unimportant, I left it as:
foreach interface intf of x

The short version is that the interface ordering is required in the following functions:
Lowpoint_Visit()
Construct_GADAG_via_Lowpoint()
Run_Topological_Sort_GADAG()

Tell me if the clarifications make sense.

Thanks,
Chris

From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) [mailto:anil.sn@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:16 AM
To: Chris Bowers; Gábor Sándor Enyedi; Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com<mailto:Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>; Alia Atlas; 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: RE: [rtgwg] draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03

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<mailto:Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>; Alia Atlas; 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: 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