Re: [trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sat, 11 March 2017 04:53 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE77D128E18; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 dFmODp5q5_59; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::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 8D0D1128874; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h10so7130783ith.1; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:46 -0800 (PST)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gny7FjKIjUK/gDtgLoARfJm5hzkXeDcHtWJDBP1nYP4=; b=l/g+W6g34UL7HhNn7oCd0XK87djDFp1dW8qO5eadgEcTTj5JZkCnFGscod7jlzzLpP 9aKdLl5jx9x6DI+mQ2l5ryKKFjUeT47eZhRWoWc5PL3yNjvHRxHYnISxFSznWvGgap6D 3I01QqTc9OW1l4/P43xMj8IJnJAZbAa/q2yHDa90DUqkuI3dlrfGWPeEipdtUwkFGX9/ W/mqyV6mJYQMmYBjnARenxjgaWmk8YWyJUpjoCFSN0tTdTS1YLT1ealn6mLqgAFfx6Y+ uEvZg/1H5S+OizJzHrWK1dH10zVn4p28B08ah6UIXzFSi1rA5vVlRYNu2+wyqgWoTYCj a5UA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gny7FjKIjUK/gDtgLoARfJm5hzkXeDcHtWJDBP1nYP4=; b=E4eeyI4oAyUZnBdRoHpVNBqQUDgjW3/T3bZ+yIVCp6bxo1VfKArRtrZHu9O+uMbbTM IIUCAxll9zfcfKWuFacuaKXRoyBLbzRXMSHWubNuA7Aed60lycELFrdyAa6DBPGyXaBi zIXECyk04bAGnS2Y6EiTzU1m/rvnKyv6U/1iomOXLFab8mqAdsyQ3a8opPLigDk5XSE4 UL+EL5wLeSk0jOPA3VWKSIZo4zi2KLU4kxWORnhHF19jGjiwPBLnCE/QU84+nPmMQO39 EmeSDcM6MX0ac6upldOvHcJ6ME3QD1OKMsat8f9D1hgT3EwuFmFyZHBqovkSKpb7kCZI Y8+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0dQ1X7PWYJhWjwLodes3yocHYw5E7aUFWGYqLDCXPQSwyJxu7L8D1HyeIt/p3gKuMTQVOb2W5v2tiXGA==
X-Received: by 10.36.118.68 with SMTP id z65mr2165779itb.59.1489208025749; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.135.215 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:53:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEE4kDGcY_h1ZsE1pP+=h+zShnsepnhq68fS0J++B1j4zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148477153647.2298.16876633792182475280.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEE21nqqZZZbhvuPztaNSp0uHoZWPpirr2X9QfgQv9my6w@mail.gmail.com> <FDF0EF47-D4FE-4A62-96B3-FB3559287AC4@cisco.com> <CAF4+nEE4kDGcY_h1ZsE1pP+=h+zShnsepnhq68fS0J++B1j4zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 23:53:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHk=rKrgoz_K_9c4OcyQJTUAEJH7NBs51qvsB_2K+_H4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/7e0VADpaEEF-_4fjnTnTdTA3L2w>
Cc: "trill-chairs@ietf.org" <trill-chairs@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 04:53:48 -0000

H Alvaro,

Could you look at version -05 which is intended to resolve your
DISCUSS as discussed below.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> <aretana@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> Donald:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I am not concerned about the case you described below: where the source and
>> destination are attached to the same switch.  Nor am I concerned about
>> transit TRILL data packets.
>
> OK. I guess I was mislead by your reference to the IS-IS standard that
> a router in overload "shall not" be considered for transit. I thought
> that your comment had to do with building shortest cost paths which is
> not particularly relevant here.
>
>> I am concerned about the case where the other end stations are not attached
>> to any of the local switches, but are somewhere else in the campus (or the
>> mixed case where some of the other end stations are attached to an
>> overloaded switch, but others are elsewhere).  In that case, if I am not
>> missing anything, the appointed forwarder for the local link will accept the
>> native frame and will have to send a TRILL Data Packet across the campus –
>> the information to do that may not be available if the switch is overloaded.
>
> Yes. The case you cite is one where the designated router really, as
> the draft says, SHOULD NOT appoint the router in overload as appointed
> forwarder. (Note that if it violates this "SHOULD NOT" the appointed
> forwarder becomes, as far as IS-IS routing is concerned, a source and
> sink, not a transit node.) But, in any case, it may be that the
> designated router on the link is the only router on the link and is in
> overload or it may be that all the routers on the link are in
> overloaded or it may be the case I cite where the best routed to
> appointer forwarder for VLAN-x is one that is in overload because all
> the end stations in VLAN-x are attached to that router. So there are
> plenty of cases where either it is a good idea or is unavoidable to
> appoint a router in overload as the appointed forwarder for some VLAN.
> You ask for the reason the draft says "SHOULD NOT" rather than "MUST
> NOT" and that's the reason.
>
> I can make some changes to Section 2.4 to try to clarify this.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>> Thanks!
>> Alvaro.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/18/17, 11:43 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Alvaro,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>>
>> draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04: Discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> DISCUSS:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Section 2.4 (Overload and Appointed Forwarders) talks about potential
>>
>> Appointed Forwarders which are overloaded.  In IS-IS, a node with the
>>
>> overload bit set "shall not" (ISO 10589) be considered for transit.
>>
>> However, the use of "SHOULD NOT appoint an RBridge in overload" and
>>
>> "SHOULD re-assign VLANs from the overloaded RBridge" leaves a potential
>>
>> hole in the proper forwarding of TRILL data packers.  Why aren't MUST
>>
>> NOT/MUST used?  Is there something in the specific use of IS-IS by TRILL
>>
>> that I am missing?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Appointed Forwarder function has to do with accepting frames from
>>
>> end stations for ingress and egressing frames to end stations. It does
>>
>> not have anything to do with TRILL Data packet transit routing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider the following case: two TRILL switches (RBridges) RB1 and RB2
>>
>> are connected by a link L1 that also has end stations on it. The end
>>
>> stations are all in VLAN X. There are other end stations in VLAN X in
>>
>> the TRILL campus not on L1 but all of these other end stations are
>>
>> directly connected to RB2. RB2 is in overload.
>>
>>
>>
>> Under these circumstances, RB2 should be the Appointed Forwarder for
>>
>> VLAN X as that way traffic between all of the VLAN X end stations can
>>
>> be forwarded by RB2 without any IS-IS routing at all. RB2 will just
>>
>> be, in effect, forwarding native frames between RB2 ports (although,
>>
>> for consistency, the TRILL specifications say that RB2 ingresses this
>>
>> VLAN X traffic by encapsulating it into a TRILL Data frame, and then
>>
>> notices it is destined for an end station on a local port, immediately
>>
>> decapsulates it, and sends it out that port).
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear; either point to the
>>
>> piece I'm missing, or don't use an overloaded node.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Donald
>>
>> ===============================
>>
>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>
>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>
>> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>
>>