Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

[tech_kals Kals <[e-mail]>]

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) <
[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:22 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); [e-mail]
> *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__
>