[spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 02:21 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 3742F129BBB for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 7YVp-c1uBpBy for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 C4463120046 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id n11so5553434wma.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BjABOODSW0PSYeWaAKmnCisUgGMU/oEn2nlfNjVcamE=; b=q4t7q1kqgV7ZCM7kQ7MK81DzC3tUrVUxR8m8PkM3/uNW7s9xfTWC7Be4MZoVnUAWoh YvMHVegQA0e0/8AmWzA+mAX2KoB9l1ENJqqCikps2qouoHvf9pGVCk7QLPE2lnAV8yEt nx/iG4Gt8QAN7VH9myUA/4bYNCvidcOl4kymQ2HlQ8qg43Zty+Wi26rrWkIlaeA96mmT IgD121Ug7X34NagZwjXWFopkt9q//3RUvTkbRmKE3dh690V0ZrSvutTWxL7Pt+mcVb2B alhUnd3VErs4hJjduO/pV7lkMmPVP2KbZCpV/Zae7uxVZR1jPhEdt3WiDMLL0t0IrKoA QNng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BjABOODSW0PSYeWaAKmnCisUgGMU/oEn2nlfNjVcamE=; b=rRaeVkAxCtKFrpys42+cykt08kAaXX1ixVr4QmiUfsDtDLn0u/kePr+hNniBrc+z8Y qTmTi/cGovFzfLEjABI464UeI0Bu/of7eD3zrt2K/SClt/Mt/xV/4zkeTrbd3Nl+DDSs LSMV9sHTEaDokhkczQU9j0FK/0XCPVZ2+adT8b9xBdYl2WgCGAPYtiehtdJleRp8S9RG Zj17UOKbnCwn7utNivQlnF+KvpGI9xGEGQlGrm/Q0+zzHW/CREg3L16Fc3IUCdY++Hus mHQSxfnGl009C9djz9ik1wigAB7kdGud40JYqJNhZp8CIJjPTXH+xkDXuXK1Sk8pOHYA 9mOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1vZHS0E2jRE92hDKpeKTJtcOHEnm9n7lCau3UhutoYwUQRebscXpA4MFwJp39AuCUg9RroOcXSkwy79g==
X-Received: by 10.28.151.142 with SMTP id z136mr631824wmd.20.1489717314978; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.176.193 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: tech_kals Kals <tech.kals@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 07:51:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHWErLdy5RgdWQKOXp1PrbB6T_ANObznCSXvdQ0nkbBgukD5cQ@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="001a1144fe9e600d6a054ae3d7c5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/r4ATABOVRxezgof_IdOYsid5Eso>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:46:16 -0700
Subject: [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 02:24:37 -0000

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__