Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

Hi Robert,

  As I have mentioned on the previous mail, there is a conflict on each
scenario.

*Scenario 1:   (Entries are conflicting with prefix)*
                         Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>  *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
                         Entry *E2:      <10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24>,
  150, 5>  *can be expanded up to *<10.1.5.0/24 <http://10.1.5.0/24>, 154>*

*                         incoming entry is X:*
*                         Entry X:        <10.1.2.0/24
<http://10.1.2.0/24>,  200, 20> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.21.0/24
<http://10.1.21.0/24>, 221>*

                     entry-X prefix range *10.1.10.0 to 10.1.21.0 *would
conflict with entry *E1 *and *10.1.2.0 to 10.1.5.0* would conflict with *E2*
.

                     *So, there is a prefix conflict.*

*Scenario 2:   **(Entries are conflicting with SID)*
                         Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>  *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
                         Entry *E2:      <7.1.1.0/24 <http://7.1.1.0/24>,
  280, 10>  *can be expanded up to *<7.1.10.0/24 <http://7.1.10.0/24>, 289>*

*                         incoming entry is X:*
*                         Entry X:        <3.1.1.0/24 <http://3.1.1.0/24>,
  285, 20>  *can be expanded up to *<3.1.19.0/24 <http://3.1.19.0/24>, 304>*

                     entry-X SID *300 *to *304 *would conflict with entry
*E1 *and *SID 285 to 289* would conflict with *E2*.

                     *So, there is a SID conflict.*

*Scenario 3:    **(Entries are conflicting with prefix and SID)*

                         Entry *E1:      <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>  *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
                         Entry *E2:      <5.1.1.0/24 <http://5.1.1.0/24>,
  190, 15>  *can be expanded up to *<5.1.15.0/24 <http://5.1.15.0/24>, 204>*

*                         incoming entry is X:*
*                         Entry X:        <10.1.1.0/24
<http://10.1.1.0/24>,  200, 20> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.20.0/24
<http://10.1.20.0/24>, 219>*

                    entry-X prefix range *10.1.10.0 to 10.1.20.0 *would
conflict with entry *E1 and **SID 200 to 219* would conflict with *E2*.

                    *So, there is a Prefix and SID conflict.*

Regards,
_tech.kals_

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>