Hi Alexander, Thanks for the comments, see more replies inline.
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Okonnikov > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi authors, > > > I have some comments below regarding the draft: > > > 1) Section 2: "There is currently only two Flag bits defined." Per -07 only > one flag is defined. S flag was deprecated since version -06 (implicit > signaling of presence of Sub-TLVs is used via "Sub-TLV Len" field non-zero > value. Text in the beginning of the chapter 2 about flag S is to be removed > as well. NS> will fix. > > 2) Section 3.1: "In order to ensure that an individual TE link is used as a > link of last resort during SPF computation, ..." I guess that you meant > regular link rather than TE link. > > 3) For the same section: Per my understanding, this section assumes that > overloaded link will always be considered as last-resort link. I.e. it cannot > be excluded from topology (as link with metric 2^24-1), unless originator of > the TLV sets appropriate bit in corresponding Link Attributes Sub-TLV (RFC > 5029) AND receiving ISs support that Sub-TLV. As alternative it could be done > by allowing for originator to specify reverse metric special value 2^24-1 > which would indicate to receivers that the link is to be excluded from > topology completely rather than used as last resort. If reverse metric value > is between 0 - 2^24-2 then link could be used in path calculation. The same > rules for TE metric. NS> I don’t see there is much difference between not used or last resort in the use cases we mentioned. also, this metric value is an ‘offset metric’ being added on top of the existing local metric. It would not be always feasible to make the reverse-metric off by one to mean two completely different operations. > > 4) For the same section: The draft says that if originator uses narrow > metric-type, it should use value 63 as max-metric. But on receiving reverse > metric with such value receivers have no idea whether this is "narrow" > max-metric or offset 63 for "wide" metric. I.e. the draft assumes that all > ISs use the same type of metric, and using of two metric types at the same > time is not covered. May be it would be appropriate to define two Reverse > Metric TLVs, like IS Neighbors TLV and Extended IS Reachability TLV. Or to > specify new flag to mark type of the reverse metric. NS> to be simple, we have to assume a network is either run wide or narrow. It can not be fixed. The document is trying to be complete to mention the ‘narrow’ case. > > 5) For the same section: It is not clear for me why DIS should use min(63, > (Metric + Reverse Metric)) while composing pseudonode LSP. If DIS is > configured for using "wide" metric-type, it will use Extended IS Reachability > TLVs for describing its neighbors. Moreover, in this case DIS is not > obligated to still insert IS Neighbors TLVs in its Pseudonode LSP (in > addition to Extended IS Reachability TLVs) when it is configured for > "wide-only" mode. NS> agreed. will remove this, to keep the same goal as above, to be simple. Not to mix them. > > 6) For the same section: It is not clear for me why in case when TE metric > offset is not advertised in Reverse Metric TLV, receiving IS must modify its > TE metric by adding IGP reverse metric value. In my mind, it would be > straightforward to use follow rule: if originator doesn't include TE metric > part then it doesn't wish to overload TE link, but only IGP link. For > example, originator advertises Reverse metric TLV as part of IGP-LDP > synchronization procedure (section 3.5). It is not reason to impact TE > properties (metric in this case) of the link. Hence, originator could > advertise Reverse metric TLV without TE metric Sub-TLV, in order to signal > that "TE metric is left intact”. NS> sounds resonable. Will change this to say if the sub-TLV of TE is not received, the TE properties will not change by receiving this ‘reverse-metric’ TLV. > > 7) Section 3.3: The draft is not clear about handling of TE metric by DIS. > Usually DIS implementations don't insert TE Sub-TLVs into Extended IS > Reachability TLVs in Pseudonode LSP. May be it would be better to add > explicit text that: if DIS receives TE metric Sub-TLV in Reverse Metric TLV > it should update TE Default Metric Sub-TLV value of corresponding Extended IS > Reachability TLV OR insert new one if it was not present there. NS> To me, there is not much difference between DIS and other nodes. Will try to add some words to that. thanks. - Naiming > > > Thanks! > > > 30.11.2017 01:47, Naiming Shen (naiming) пишет: >> Hi Ketan, >> >> thanks for the support and comments. some clarification inline, >> >>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:54 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I support this draft, however would like the following aspect/scenario >>> clarified. >>> >>> Consider the scenario where both the neighbours on a p2p link initiate the >>> reverse metric procedure (i.e. include the TLV in their hellos >>> concurrently). How are implementations supposed to handle this? Normally >>> the choice of metric conveyed via this TLV is based on a particular >>> condition (which need not just be "overload") on the local router which >>> requires the neighbour to use shift to using the reverse metric supplied. >>> So when both neighbours initiate this process, it would be good to have the >>> specification provide a deterministic behaviour since the reverse metric >>> values provided may conflict in certain "non-overload" conditions. If both >>> routers simply accept the value supplied by their neighbour, it may not >>> achieve the original purpose/design of this triggering this mechanism? >> When you say if both sides initiated this ‘reverse metric’, you implied >> there is a timing issue with this procedure in the draft. >> >> The value of this ‘metric offset’ (or whatever will be called) of this TLV, >> is just a number. The draft does not say this number is equal to the >> configured ‘metric’ value plus the received ‘reverse metrc’ value, that >> would be non-deterministic and both sides would keep going up until it’s >> overloaded:-) >> >> Each side of IS-IS link decides if it needs to send a ‘reverse metric’ over >> the link, >> either in link-overloading case, or other cases. It’s a static number, it >> does not >> depend on the other side sending a ‘reverse metric’ or not. This both sides >> sending a ‘reverse-metric’ over a link is equivalent to an operator >> provisions >> new metric (say both plus 10 to the old metric) on both sides of the link at >> the same time, there is no non-determinitic thing in this. >> >> thanks. >> - Naiming >> >>> Following options come to my mind: >>> a) when this condition is detected, none of the routers actually apply the >>> reverse metric procedure >>> b) when this condition is detected, the router with higher/lower system-id >>> value (or some such tiebreaker) wins and the other withdraws its reverse >>> metric (until then (a) applies) >>> c) some mechanism/rule that is based on the value of metric offset >>> specified perhaps (made harder since the actual metric is not signalled but >>> the offset) which determines the "winner" so the other withdraws their TLV. >>> >>> Since the mechanism is not specific to overload conditions (where this is >>> not an issue), it may be necessary for the specification to clarify this >>> behaviour to ensure interoperability. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ketan >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps >>> Sent: 16 November 2017 04:13 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07 >>> >>> >>> The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric/ >>> >>> which will last an extended 3 weeks to allow for IETF100. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chris. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Isis-wg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Isis-wg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
