Hi Sandy,
thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates. I've logged
my answers under GIM3>> tag.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:44 PM <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Thank you for your good modification and clarification!
> About two sections I still have some comments, I copy the contents here
> because the mail is too long:
> 1,
> 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI
> tunnel's state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other
> decision.
> GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may use a
> combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy) to
> control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think
> that the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel
> reception state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you
> think?
> 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the
> BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used
> as a supplement for BFD session?
> GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy,
> that may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session.
> Sandy2> Since BFD packet is forwarding through by x-PMSI tunnel, egress PE
> can get the tunnel states by BFD detection timer expiration. So
> administrator may choose different policies to control the session state,
> but the bfd packets detection should be the base. IMO section 3.1.1~4 are
> optional.
>
GIM3>> I re-read the 3.1 and I think now better understand the original
idea. All methods listed in sub-sections, including the one that describes
use of p2mp BFD, are alternatives, options to detect a failure in the
tunnel. Would the following update be helpful:
OLD TEXT:
   The procedure proposed here also allows that all downstream PEs don't
   apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is
   (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that
   may be different for different downstream PEs.
NEW TEXT:
   The optional procedures proposed in this section also allow that all
downstream PEs don't
   apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is
   (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that
   may be different for different downstream PEs.

For section 3.1.5 counter information, how do the configurable timer work
> with the bfd detection timer? What should egress PE do with the expiration
> of the two timers when they are both used?
>
GIM3>> MPLS FRR is mentioned in the draft as an example of the "fast
restoration mechanism". Likely, FRR will be enabled by single-hop p2p BFD
per protected link. If that's the case, for the scenario described in this
sub-section, p2mp BFD is unnecessary.

>
> 2.
> For section 3.1.7.1, the last sentence.
> GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be
> sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I
> interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the
> disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already
> exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator
> and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the
> right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe
> optional procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the
> egress PE switches to the new p2mp BFD session.
> Sandy2>If the "old" BFD discriminator can be reused in the new
> advertisement when the switchover is happened on a same upstream PE? If the
> "old" discriminator can be reused, it seems like it isn't necessary to
> build a new BFD session. But if a new BFD discriminator MUST be generated,
> then the new add sentence looks good to me.
>
GIM3>> Would the following update to the last paragraph address your
concern:
OLD TEXT:
   If the route to the
   src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE-
   CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route
   with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that value of the BFD
   Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link.
NEW TEXT:
   If the route to the
   src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE-
   CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route
   with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that the previously advertised value
of the BFD
   Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link.

>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
>
> ------------------原始邮件------------------
> 发件人:GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
> 收件人:张征00007940;
> 抄送人:zzh...@juniper.net <zzh...@juniper.net>;bess-cha...@ietf.org <
> bess-cha...@ietf.org>;Thomas Morin <thomas.mo...@orange.com>;Robert
> Kebler <rkeb...@juniper.net>;BESS <bess@ietf.org>;
> 日 期 :2019年02月07日 08:16
> 主 题 :Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
> Hi Sandy,much appreciate your comments. Please find my answers below
> tagged GIM2>>.
> Attached, please find the updated working version and the diff to the last
> published version.
>
> Kind regards,
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:40 PM <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
> Hi Greg, Jeffrey, co-authors,
>
> About the questions provided by Jeffrey, I have some concerns, please see
> below with Sandy>.
> And I have some other questions:
> 1. According to "draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-19" and the function defined in
> this draft, IMO the BFD session should be demultiplexed by the combination
> of upstream peer address, the discriminator and the X-PMSI which is used
> for flow forwarding. IMO these content should be written in the draft
> clearly.
> GIM2>> Agreed and to clarify I propose the following update to the
> Downstream PE Procedures:
> OLD TEXT:
> On receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the
> Downstream PE:
>
> o  MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the
> P-tunnel originating from the Root PE;
>
> o  MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
> MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint];
>
> o  MUST use the source IP address of a BFD control packet, the value
> of BFD Discriminator from the BGP-BFD Attribute to properly
> demultiplex BFD sessions;
>
> NEW TEXT:
> Upon receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the
> Downstream PE:
>
> o  MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the
> P-tunnel originating from the Root PE and the IP address of the
> Upstream PE;
>
> o  MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
> MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint];
>
> o  MUST use the source IP address of the BFD control packet, the
> value of the BFD Discriminator field, and the x-PMSI tunnel
> identifier the BFD control packet was received to properly
> demultiplex BFD sessions.
>
> 2. The P2MP BFD packet should be delivered in the X-PMSI tunnel. The BFD
> multicast packet MUST be encapsulated in associated tunnel. It seems like
> there is no specifiction for it.
> GIM2>> Agree and to clarify I propose the following text to be added to
> the Upstream PE Procedures section:
> NEW TEXT:
> o  MUST periodically transmit BFD control packets over the x-PMSI
> tunnel.
> 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI
> tunnel's state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other
> decision.
> GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may use a
> combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy) to
> control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think
> that the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel
> reception state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you
> think?
> 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the
> BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used
> as a supplement for BFD session?
> GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy,
> that may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
> 原始邮件
> 发件人:GregMirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
> 收件人:zzh...@juniper.net <zzh...@juniper.net>;
> 抄送人:bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>;Thomas Morin <
> thomas.mo...@orange.com>;Robert Kebler <rkeb...@juniper.net>;BESS <
> bess@ietf.org>;
> 日 期 :2018年12月06日 02:38
> 主 题 :Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> Hi Jeffrey,thank you for the review, detailed questions and helpful
> comments. Please find my notes, answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:14 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <
> zzh...@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have the following questions/comments:
> The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that consists
> of having a downstream PE take into account the status of P-tunnels
> rooted at each possible upstream PEs, for including or not including
> each given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S,C-G)
> state.  The result is that, if a P-tunnel is "down" (see
> Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not be
> considered for UMH selection, which will result in the downstream PE
> to failover to the upstream PE which is next in the list of
> candidates.
> Is it possible that a p2mp tunnel is considered up by some leaves  but
> down by some other leaves, leaving to them choosing different UMH? In that
> case, procedures described in Section 9.1.1 ("Discarding Packets from Wrong
> PE") of RFC 6513 must be used. I see that this is actually pointed out
> later in section 6 – good to have  a pointer to it right here.
> GIM>> Would the following new text that follows the quoted text address
> your concern:
> NEW TEXT:
> If rules to determine the state of the P-tunnel are not
> consistent across all PEs, then some may arrive at a different
> conclusion regarding the state of the tunnel, In such a scenario,
> procedures described in Section 9.1.1 of [RFC 6513] MUST be used.
> Sandy> I think Jeffrey means that a egress PE may choose a new UMH after
> the the "old" UMH fails. Then the egress PE may also receive (C-S, C-G)
> flows from old UMH p-tunnel, these flows MUST be discarded according to
> section 9.1.1 of RFC6513.
> GIM2>> I think that the proposed text may address the comment. I'm,as
> always, open to suggestions on how to modify, refine the proposed new text.
> Additionally, the text in section 3 seems to be more biased on Single
> Forwarder Election choosing the UMH with the highest IP address. Section 5
> of RFC6513 also describes two other options, hashing or based on “installed
> UMH route” (aka unicast-based). It is not clear how the text in this
> document applies to hashing based selection,  and I don’t see how the text
> applies to unicast-based selection. Some rewording/clarification are needed
> here.
> GIM>> How would the use of an alternative UMH selection algorithm change
> documented use of p2mp BFD? Do you think that if the Upstream PE selected
> using, for example, hashing then defined use of BGP-BFD and p2mp BFD itself
> no longer applicable?
> Sandy> Diffrent UMH selection methods don't influent p2mp BFD documented
> in this draft. IMO both of section 3 and section 5 need to be mentioned
> here in order to avoid confusion.
> GIM2>> Very helpful clarification, thank you. Please consider the
> following update to section 4:
> OLD TEXT:
> The procedures
> require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> selection, as specified in [RFC6513].
> NEW TEXT:
> The procedures
> require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based
> on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3
> [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route.
> For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is
> considered up if one or more of the P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs, identified by
> the P-tunnel Attribute, are in Up state.
> Why is “one or more of …” used in the above text?
> GIM>> Would s/one or more of/at least one of/ address your concern?
> Sandy> I am not sure there are the situations that  two or more LSPs are
> used to deliver a same (C-S, C-G). IMO only the LSP used by forwarding need
> to be mointor in egress PE.
> GIM>> I need to defer this to Thomas and Rob. If you agree with Sandy,
> should we just remove the sentence?
> There are several occurrences of ((S, G)). I assume they should be
> changed to (C-S, C-G).
> GIM>> Indeed, globally replaced s/((S,G))/(C-S,C-G)/
> A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given ((S, G))
> if the P-tunnel for this (S, G) (I or S , depending) is leaf
> triggered (PIM, mLDP)
> Perhaps either remove the (I or S , depending)or  move it to before the
> “for”.
> GIM>> Moved before the "for".
> This document defines the format and ways of usingr a new BGP
> attribute called the "BGP- BFD attribute".
> s/usingr/using/
> GIM>> Yes, great catch.
> o  MUST use [Ed.note] address as destination IP address when
> transmitting BFD control packets;
> [Ed.note]?
> GIM>> Replaced [Ed...note] to make it as follows:
> o  MUST use address in 127.0.0.0/8 range for IPv4 or in
> 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 as destination IP address
> when transmitting BFD control packets;
> If tracking of the P-tunnel by using a p2mp BFD session is to be
> enabled after the P-tunnel has been already signaled, the the
> procedure described above MUST be followed.
> What if the tracking is to  be enabled before the P-tunnel has been
> signaled? The text implies different behavior?
> GIM>> Not really, I guess. I think that the second sentence is important:
> Note that x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with exactly the same
> attributes as before and
> the BGP-BFD Attribute included.
> s/the the/then the/
> GIM>> Done.
> … The dedicated p2mp BFD session MAY monitor the state of
> the Standby Upstream PE.
> What does the above text mean? Do you mean “A different p2mp BFD session
> …”?
> GIM>> Yes, thank you for the suggested re-wording. Applied s/The
> dedicated/A different/
> When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration
> mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, leaf PEs should be configured
> to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel restoration
> mechanism happen.  A configurable timer MUST be provided for this
> purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable default value
> for this timer.
> What does “such a procedure” refers to?
> GIM>> Would s/When such a procedure is used/In such a scenario/
> s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/?
> GIM>> Great catch, thank you. Done.
> 3.1.7.  Per PE-CE link BFD Discriminator
> The following approach is defined for the fast failover in response
> to the detection of PE-CE link failures, in which UMH selection for a
> given C-multicast route takes into account the state of the BFD
> session associated with the state of the upstream PE-CE link.
> 3.1.7.1.  Upstream PE Procedures
> For each protected PE-CE link, the upstream PE initiates a multipoint
> BFD session [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] as MultipointHead toward
> downstream PEs.  A downstream PE monitors the state of the p2mp
> session as MultipointTail and MAY interpret transition of the BFD
> session into Down state as the indication of the associated PE-CE
> link being down.
> Since  the BFD packets are sent over the P2MP tunnel not the PE-CE link,
> my understanding is that the BFD discriminator is still for the tunnel and
> not tied to the PE-CE link; but different from the previous case, the root
> will stop sending BFD messages when it detects  the PE-CE link failure. As
> far as the egress PEs are concerned, they don’t know if it is the tunnel
> failure or PE-CE link failure.
> If my  understanding is correct, the wording should be changed.
> GIM>> There are other than stopping transmission of BFD control packets
> ways to distinguish two conditions for the egress PE. For example, the
> MultipointHead MAY set the State to AdminDown and continue sending BFD
> control packets. If and when PE-CE link restored to Up, the MultipointHead
> can set the state to Up in the BFD control packet.
> Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. The BFD detection should be mapping to
> specific flow/flows associated with X-PMSIs, not the PE-CE link. The PE-CE
> link should influence the X-PMSIs and associated (C-S, C-G) flows. The
> AdminDown function defined in BFD works normally.
> GIM2>> The described behavior of the egress PE is optional and can be
> controlled by the local policy.
> …  If the route to the
> src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE-
> CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route
> with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that value of the BFD
> Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link.
> If the RPF interface changes on the upstream PE, why should it update  the
> route to send a new discriminator? As long as there is a new RPF interface
> couldn’t the upstream PE do nothing but start tracking the new RPF
> interface?
> GIM>> I'll defer this one to Thomas and Rob.
> Sandy> I have the same question with Jeffrey. If RPF interface changes on
> the upstream PE, and a new route generated with a new BFD discriminator, a
> new P2MP BFD session need to be established and the network stability will
> be influenced. We need a function to guarantee the existed BFD session
> should not be influenced.
> GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be
> sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I
> interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the
> disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already
> exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator
> and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the
> right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe
> optional procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the
> egress PE switches to the new p2mp BFD session.
> Regardless which way (the currently described way and my imagined  way),
> some text should be added to discuss how the downstream would not switch to
> another upstream PE when the primary PE is just going through a RPF change.
> GIM>>  Would appending the following text be acceptable to address your
> concern:
> NEW TEXT:
> To avoid unwarranted switchover a downstream PE MUST gracefully handle the
> updated S-PMSI A-D route and switch to the use of the associated BFD
> Discriminator value.
> 4.  Standby C-multicast route
> The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
> that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs. The procedures
> require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> selection, as specified in [RFC6513].
> Why would it not work with more than two upstream PEs?
> Why is it limited to single forwarder selection? What about unicast  based
> selection?
> GIM>> Again, asking for Thomas and Rob to help.
> Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. There is no limition for advertising same
> flows through more than two PEs. Maybe the text should be modify to the UMH
> and the next best UMH.
> GIM2>>  Thank you for the suggestion. Jeffrey and Sandy, would the
> following update address your concerns:
> OLD TEXT:
> The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
> that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs.  The procedures
> require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> selection, as specified in [RFC6513].
> NEW TEXT:
> The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
> that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs though, to simplify
> the description, the case of dual-homing is described.  The
> procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the UMH
> selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based
> on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3
> [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route.
> This route, that has the semantics of being a 'standby'
> C-multicast route, is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
> route", and is constructed as follows:
> o  the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
> that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
> using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
> to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S)
> Since you mention RD, you might as well mention it carries a Route  Target
> derived from the standby RE’s UMH route’s VRF RT Import EC.
> GIM>> Woud the following be acceptable:
> NEW TEXT:
> o  the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
> that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
> using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
> to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S and a
> Route Target derived from the standby PE's UMH route's VRF RT
> Import EC)
> If at some later point the local PE determines that C-S is no longer
> reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE
> becomes the Upstream PE, and the local PE re-sends the C-multicast
> route with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that
> now the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which
> results in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only
> difference between these routes being the presence/absence of the
> Standby PE BGP Community).
> Additionally the LOCAL_PREF should also change?
> GIM>> Like normative SHOULD?
> 4.3.  Reachability determination
> The standby PE can use the following information to determine that
> C-S can or cannot be reached through the primary PE:
> Shouldn’t this be 4.2.1 instead of 4.3?
> GIM>> Yes, agree. Thank you.
> 5.  Hot leaf standby
> The mechanisms defined in sections Section 4 and Section 3 can be
> used together as follows.
> This section is a little confusing to me. It seems that it really  should
> be how a leaf should behave when hot root standby is used, not that there
> is a “hot leaf” mode. A leaf is just a leaf, not a
> cold/warm/hot/primary/standby leaf.
> GIM>> Would re-naming the section to "Use of Standby C-multicast Route"
> better reflect the content of the section?
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
> From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> stephane.litkow...@orange.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 2:54 AM
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
>
> Hello Working Group,
> This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-04  [1]
>
> This poll runs until *the 6th of December*.
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
> all the Authors  and Contributors.
>
> Currently two IPRs have been disclosed against this Document.
>
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
> We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].
> Thank you,
> Stephane & Matthew
>
> [1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/
>
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to