Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tech.kals@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC001243F6 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 1XMOwWLsows2 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com (mail-wr0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::229]) (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 62F7112948E for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g10so45858846wrg.2 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vWvUFteVAz45iOSXGmlB1xpRkPotSPKZUSOjNp74Sfc=; b=EupR0Z2LIliournZ+8jL17dqXVmfpOkBoZYUg8+1AUy5fVGcTZKkvaLKxwvjKipj/4 gdMLgtORR9j+KoYWyQpuz8rbVXvqvk4+3YofQ4quF8ilZEilf3IqWWQdct+Y+76BQaxx 7wKw6EgVz7r86Ug5L6VYADe8pNBwXmLfWr6PdQ5Mjq2Fn2PHlessCGjPSemVFcQ5d7KH 3jk7WegtHMpqKbE3jbQ8VkYe4fhs9gQc1EMpL3U+U0FdDWPnipcB6kGZDJnKA4ycuPtK C1/xzwEJgnhfdG+tgqDXIAe98WUe+Pd9VlQU0FaONTyyx88PCwESIfPv4ynQ41UeOezI 6P+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=vWvUFteVAz45iOSXGmlB1xpRkPotSPKZUSOjNp74Sfc=; b=RCCJHM9LqX/mr7tLuh/P7+Ua2r7VCU1kZalpZJPRWWBL7rD2QevpGn/Xl0OJ/Wi6ug fFupg7NDBn9KcCupb1stcLbJlZxN7iE3iEz0vqoUGtyLTPVshVgJalZPOph12wpiqirF UEkrJE34ejpcBqXMrzptNlMVJvGEW2eDL0Turd172XD4DGMkhd6t36QSh5/ZUdQNBVL2 j2Ih39ksNnkOjfeW8ThAv1EbcLtcKh8rfWLWnwUI6avR4jFHZXcUA14kxOUtdWTIfw1b Bl3sAQAd6VVKaan9fXwQz2U9WcCM+QsgW6bDkx8O2hUBddIg1k2RDWLpWu7fZB8rVu2h F7aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2ZQ0NmlZ+ksz/scLz9wRIyejQbWRwfPoVqcpl9y8aGQ3qNA9I4t6T1tcWjHD4QAvV8uVbugCrz6hR6dQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.134.157 with SMTP id 29mr11152698wrx.33.1489734089611; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.176.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHWErLdy5RgdWQKOXp1PrbB6T_ANObznCSXvdQ0nkbBgukD5cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHWErLdy5RgdWQKOXp1PrbB6T_ANObznCSXvdQ0nkbBgukD5cQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:31:28 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHWErLfvJyDZFNYbxDG_zOR+BwuSs7KGYr1iHKkVCfBcR2ThUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: spring@ietf.org, ginsberg@cisco.com, ppsenak@cisco.com, sprevidi@cisco.com, martin.pilka@pantheon.tech
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146beac38a0ef054ae7bfe3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/CKmW0PxyYpcnXfOJOwTYGxe_1ss>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:47:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 07:01:38 -0000

Hi Experts,

  Can someone reply please.

Rgds,
Kaliyaperumal K


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:51 AM, tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Experts,
>
>   Could you please explain me what would be the expected behavior in the
> following scenario in *Quarantine approach*.
>
>   Mapping entries *E1, E2, E3 *are Active entries.
>
>   In case, if incoming new entry say *X *which has conflict with *E1, E2
> and E3.*
>
>   Assume, *X is better than E1 but not better than E2.  ( E1 < X < E2)*
>
> *  1] X is better than E1 so E1 will become excluded entry and X will
> become an active entry*
>
> *  2] Now, X is compared with E2. E2 is better than X. So, X will become
> excluded entry and E2 is an active entry as it was.*
>
> *So, X and E1 will become "excluded entry".*
>
> *I couldn't find any info as shown above in the RFC. Can you please
> clarify ?*
>
>
> *My doubts:*
> *1) Will the entry become active only if it wins with all entries which
> are conflicted with this ?*
> *2) When doing conflict resolution with other entries, it can win with
> some entries and can lose to some? What could be the behavior ? *
> *     - This is the case which I explained above.*
> *     - In this case, X can become active by winning to E1 and lose E2
> which leads X and E1 to become inactive/excluded entry.*
>
>
> can you please clarify ?
>
>
> Regards,
> __tech.kals__
>