Hi Hannes, On 1/19/17, 11:30 PM, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>hi les, > >we have taken turns long-time ago to advertise non-routing >related information which is only relevant to controllers >(l2bundles comes into mind ;-)). > >while it would have been nice to get at least notice that >an IS-IS extension is being worked on (i mean prior to >IANA asking for expert review :-/ ) i see no reason why we >should hold this back. - we can argue perhaps whether it should >be part of GENAPP or ROUTERCAP TLVs, but i cannot see the >sky falling to advertise a non-routing related capability, >that does not change frequently. I agree but was just trying to get a better idea of precisely how the information will be used and whether interface is the right granularity. Thanks, Acee > >/hannes > >On 1/19/17 18:24, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> John >> >> >> >> For me, this raises the age-old question of when it is/is not >> appropriate to use IGPs for flooding information. >> >> >> >> This is clearly not TE information you just happen to be using this in >> conjunction with MPLS but it is a generic capability. I do not see the >> IGPs as the appropriate mechanism to flood generic interface >> capabilities. It also, as Acee has pointed out, results in flooding >> information to all nodes in the domain when only a few care about it. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:*John E Drake [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:54 AM >> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; Greg Mirsky; Les >> Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) >> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Acee, >> >> >> >> Relying on an omniscient controller is a non-starter in general and in >> particular because the protocol by which it would learn each node¹s RTM >> capabilities and distribute them to the other nodes is undefined. >> Further, one of the ways by which an omniscient controller learns a >> node¹s capabilities is by snooping the link/state database. >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:47 AM >> *To:* John E Drake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Greg Mirsky >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> *From: *John E Drake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM >> *To: *Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Alexander >> Vainshtein <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, Greg Mirsky >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc: *Robert Sparks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Acee, >> >> >> >> We discussed all of this with you over a year ago and used your >> guidance in adding the indication of RTM capability to OSPF. >> >> >> >> I¹m sorry but I focused mainly on the OSPF protocol aspects then and >> didn¹t question the use case. This question came up in the IS-IS WG >> discussions. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:38 AM >> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Greg Mirsky >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> I guess what we were trying to envision the use case and whether it >> makes sense for all the nodes in the IGP routing domain to have this >> information. Would the LSP ingress LSR only need to if the egress >> LSR supports RTM and it is best effort recording for transit LSRs in >> the path? >> >> >> >> Additionally, if it is needed in the IGPs, should there also be a >> BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV proposed? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> *From: *Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM >> *To: *Greg Mirsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc: *Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert >> Sparks <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I concur with Greg: from my POV an interoperable solution should >> not depend on an omniscient NMS client distributing information >> about capabilities of each node to each other node. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> Office: +972-39266302 >> >> Cell: +972-549266302 >> >> Email: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:01 PM >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Robert Sparks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of >>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> I believe that IGP extensions to advertise RTM capability are >> required. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> I am having trouble understanding your response. >> >> The question we are raising is whether we should extend the >> IGPs to support advertising RTM capability an alternative >> being to retrieve the capability via network management. >> >> >> >> Saying that the IGP functionality is optional and/or >> wouldn¹t always be advertised doesn¹t really answer the >> question of whether we should or should not define the IGP >> extensions. >> >> >> >> Could you respond more directly to this point? >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:44 AM >> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) >> *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg); [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> the draft defines optional functionality. If an operator has >> no use neither for PTP's Transparent Clock, nor RTM itself >> as performance metric, then RTM sub-TLV would not be >> included and thus it would not be flooded. Of course, it be >> right to reflect RTM capability through YANG data model, >> thus allowing SDN scenario you've described. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> >> Although it is a bit late, we¹ve had some discussions >> amongst the IS-IS and OSPF chairs and are wondering whether >> the interface capability belongs in the IGPs. This will be >> flooded throughout the entire routing domain is it really >> needed on every node or will it the RTM testing be initiated >> from an omniscient NMS client that would know the >> capabilities of each node or easily query them using YANG? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> *From: *mpls <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM >> *To: *Robert Sparks <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc: *"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Review of >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> >> >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> thank you for the most expedient review and comments. >> I'll make changes in Section 2 per your suggestion. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Robert Sparks >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>wrote: >> >> The changes all look good. >> >> I still think you should say something in the document >> about what "the time of packet arrival" and >> "transmission" means, and call out the point you made >> about being careful to not introduce apparent jitter by >> not making those measurements consistently. (The >> definitions you point to in your earlier mail from >> G.8013 don't really help - they just say "time of packet >> arrival". Again, the first and last bit are likely to be >> several nanoseconds apart so I think it matters. Perhaps >> you're saying it doesn't matter as long as each node is >> consistent (there will be error in the residence time >> measurement, but it will be constant at each node, so >> the sum of errors will be constant, and the clocks will >> be ok?) >> >> Please look at the new first paragraph of section 2 - >> there's a mix of "as case" and "in case" that should be >> made consistent. I suspect it would be easiest to simply >> say "referred to as using a one-step clock" and >> "referred to as using a two-step clock" or similar. >> >> RjS >> >> >> >> On 1/18/17 12:03 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> Sasha Vainshtein came with elegant idea to address >> disconnection between discussion of one-step and >> two-step modes that you've pointed out. We've moved >> Section 7 as sub-section into Section 2 now. >> Attached are updated diff and the proposed new >> version -13. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Greg Mirsky >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> once again, thank you for your thorough review and >> the most detailed comments. I've prepared updated >> version and would greatly appreciate if you review >> the changes and let us know whether your comments >> been addressed. Attached are diff and the new >>version. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Robert Sparks >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this >> draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents >> being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat >> these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 2017-01-10 >> IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17 >> IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02 >> >> Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as a >> Proposed Standard >> >> I have two primary comments. I expect both are >> rooted in the authors >> and working group knowing what the document >> means instead of seeing >> what >> it says or doesn't say: >> >> 1) The document is loose with its use of >> 'packet', and where TTLs >> appear when >> they are discussed. It might be helpful to >> rephrase the text that >> speaks >> of RTM packets in terms of RTM messages that are >> encoded as G-ACh >> messages and >> not refer to packets unless you mean the whole >> encapsulated packet >> with MPLS >> header, ACH, and G-ACh message. >> >> 2) Since this new mechanic speaks in terms of >> fractional nanoseconds, >> some >> discussion of what trigger-point you intend >> people to use for taking >> the >> precise time of a packet's arrival or departure >> seems warranted. (The >> first and >> last bit of the whole encapsulated packet above >> are going to appear at >> the >> physical layer many nanoseconds apart at OC192 >> speeds if I've done the >> math >> right). It may be obvious to the folks >> discussing this, but it's not >> obvious >> from the document. If it's _not_ obvious and >> variation in technique >> is >> expected, then some discussion about issues that >> might arise from >> different >> implementation choices would be welcome. >> >> The rest of these are editorial nits: >> >> It would help to pull an overview description of >> the difference >> between >> one-step and two-step much earlier in the >> document. I suggest in the >> overview >> in section 2. Otherwise, the reader really has >> to jump forward and >> read section >> 7 before section 3's 5th bullet makes any sense. >> >> In section 3, "IANA will be asked" should be >> made active. Say "This >> document >> asks IANA to" and point to the IANA >> consideration section. Apply >> similar >> treatment to the other places where you talk >> about future IANA >> actions. >> >> There are several places where there are missing >> words (typically >> articles or >> prepositions). You're less likely to end up with >> misinterpretations >> during the >> RFC Editor phase if you provide them before the >> document gets that far >> in the >> process. The spots I found most disruptive were >> these (this is not >> intended to >> be exhaustive): >> >> Section 3: "set 1 according" -> "set to 1 >> according" >> Section 3: "the Table 19 [IEEE..." -> "Table >> 19 of [IEEE..." >> Section 4.2: "Detailed discussion of ... modes >> in Section 7." >> -> "Detailed discussion >> of ... modes appears >> in Section 7." >> Section 10: "most of" -> "most of all" >> >> In Setion 3.1 at "identity of the source port", >> please point into the >> document >> that defines this identity and its >> representation. I suspect this is a >> pointer >> into a specific section in IEEE.1588.2008]. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
