Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

Hi,

Scenario 1 - I do not see any prefix conflict. Those are independent /24
prefixes.

Scenario 2 - X IP prefix will be installed in RIB but SR labels (entire
range) will be blocked for X.

Scenario 3 - I do not see any prefix conflict. SR labels (entire range)
will be blocked for X.

Cheers,
R.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:09 AM, tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Les,
>
>  Sorry, I have not included my mapping entries in the previous mail.
> Please see the example here below.
>
>  I am working with the RFC which doesn't support *Preference Value, *so
> please ignore it. And, my mapping entries would looks like.
> Topology will be a single topology, not a Multi-topology and algorithm
> would be SPF not CSPF.
>
>  Please read my entry the below order:  *<Prefix-start/ prefix-len,
>  starting SID,  range>*
> * E1 and E2 already configured Active entries. X is the newly incoming
> entry.*
>
>
> *Scenario 1:   (Entries are conflicting with prefix)*
>                          Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>                          Entry *E2:      <10.1.1.0/24
> <http://10.1.1.0/24>,   150, 5>*
>
> *                         incoming entry is X:*
> *                         Entry X:        <10.1.2.0/24
> <http://10.1.2.0/24>,  200, 20>*
>
> *           Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>
> *           Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>
>    *       # what are the entries would be active and what will become
> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>
>
>
> *Scenario 2:   **(Entries are conflicting with SID)*
>                          Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>                          Entry *E2:      <7.1.1.0/24 <http://7.1.1.0/24>,
>     280, 10>*
>
> *                         incoming entry is X:*
> *                         Entry X:        <3.1.1.0/24 <http://3.1.1.0/24>,
>   285, 20>*
>
> *           Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>
> *           Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>
>         *  # what are the entries would be active and what will become
> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>
>
> *Scenario 3:    **(Entries are conflicting with prefix and SID)*
>
>                          Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>                          Entry *E2:      <5.1.1.0/24 <http://5.1.1.0/24>,
>     190, 15>*
>
> *                         incoming entry is X:*
> *                         Entry X:        <10.1.1.0/24
> <http://10.1.1.0/24>,  200, 20>*
>
> *           Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>
> *           Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>
>           *# what are the entries would be active and what will become
> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>
>
> *Regards,*
> *__tech.kals__*
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> It is not possible to answer your query because the way you have
>> presented your entries (X, E1, E2, E3) does not tell us what conflicts you
>> have.
>>
>> Do you have two SIDs assigned to the same prefix? (Prefix conflict)
>>
>> Do you have the same SID assigned to two different prefixes? (SID
>> conflict)
>>
>>
>>
>> This matters – see Section 3.3.6 of the draft for an example as to why.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please present your example in the form defined in Section 3:
>>
>>
>>
>>        Prf - Preference Value (See Section 3.1)
>>
>>        Pi - Initial prefix
>>
>>        Pe - End prefix
>>
>>        L  - Prefix length
>>
>>        Lx - Maximum prefix length (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6)
>>
>>        Si - Initial SID value
>>
>>        Se - End SID value
>>
>>        R  - Range value (See Note 1)
>>
>>        T  - Topology
>>
>>        A  - Algorithm
>>
>>
>>
>>        A Mapping Entry is then the tuple: (Prf, Src, Pi/L, Si, R, T, A)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanx.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tech_kals Kals [mailto:tech.kals@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:22 PM
>> *To:* spring@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); martin.pilka@pantheon.tech
>> *Subject:* [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution
>>
>>
>>
>> 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__
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>