Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution
tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 08:09 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 C56F2120727 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 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, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 HMGegB1Nz-VV for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (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 5C46F124D68 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id u132so9315201wmg.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:28 -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 :cc; bh=icI3+GI43IqoT7VprMZZhB2aito+gRXf0bEk8DJvvFc=; b=Qz2QbKgu505ccZwNvzrPK4v4rn3+qae5QWIPhsYTrgAx+voIU/n2nfLAZUOOJFJ2dD DnX85lOy5njnrixxzmCmvRl5sRUTBjtvqat9ZdFuHshTEmQ9/sxWlAsYPfsvRuElAeyV MaEE/f8g7K6+1YnWt1kpg7n5iX4xPFNCxrpOMSwgzJetlTK2E+zHIilz1l6AoqMA7BSS Rigzn0SS/W8+OPee78jJJEC2w//cB/64MlZymAHaSw4+buQ0IiA+8jz0ZbFN2EU80EU7 Ehehaa7fbbD0mu7NAdQWVCTnVxmQoQUMNQtYZCwHLj4NVOCQA4KwpVRaaks/at5jtvuq L0gg==
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:cc; bh=icI3+GI43IqoT7VprMZZhB2aito+gRXf0bEk8DJvvFc=; b=Yx2f6jujSW+8TfbN24BJ9gvgtxKOWth+sJrZvWfaEuL3xnOn/CHCnMO6tgwenenB5s V9UCScSd1aNCUoCqM6o/GU1SufNUaYFlC6ANiMmtt8uFx9Z1280jixizmFPXXQD6SN+Z QsbM4Iz7x/ap+aWFYz8h7AN6W1uj8/o1HjzDWa6RENzq4XxCDDhSS+eMscRFMPdYyrvE vo2vircJfJAOYZOC1+px5OLhtOKeXOttYj2ECJkCaLcXm3JsUtmhOO7vgrxg3nKwFt3+ IDL3k75g0fFzRbve3n6HZG1vwtAv7YeC6DTBzAzAraY2Fl2e9uqX41S7kLxJoSQbKT/n X2zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0HKChx2YsnvXEhTW5mCefmZtQO4scopaiMchbjsEgktSgAchYOa2wGDqWfzlCEgbpDy3BPlHSfgxey6w==
X-Received: by 10.28.229.78 with SMTP id c75mr1706154wmh.20.1489738166887; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.176.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e0950e57a2a24bd99d78908be0d49a5d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAHWErLdy5RgdWQKOXp1PrbB6T_ANObznCSXvdQ0nkbBgukD5cQ@mail.gmail.com> <e0950e57a2a24bd99d78908be0d49a5d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:39:26 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHWErLeBaMPDPJst0MpQfBXQqE3PW2pwGG_f6A539o1dv9gDYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, "martin.pilka@pantheon.tech" <martin.pilka@pantheon.tech>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1145b0be3eec14054ae8b2c0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cT8m5dP10lZx7z3cldjkTdbDDOM>
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 08:09:31 -0000
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] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution tech_kals Kals
- Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)