On 26/09/2014 00:00, Chris Bowers wrote:
Stewart,
In general it looks good.
The generic reference to RFC5286 in the first paragraph does not seem
helpful to me. In my opinion, it should either be more specific or
omitted.
Ref to Section 3.5
In the third paragraph, “per-neighbor forwards SPFs” should be
“per-neighbor forward SPFs” (an error in my original text).
Done
Thanks
Stewart
Chris
*From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:53 PM
*To:* Chris Bowers; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-05
Chris
I now have this as
Since normal link state routing takes into account the IS-IS overload
bit,
[RFC6987] and costing out of links as described in [RFC5286], the forward
SPFs performed by the PLR rooted at the neighbors of the PLR also
need to take this into account. A repair tunnel path from a neighbor
of the PLR to a repair tunnel endpoint will generally avoid the nodes and
links excluded by the IGP overload/costing out rules. However, there
are two situations where this behavior may result in a repair path
traversing a link or router that should be excluded:
1. When the first hop on the repair tunnel path (from the PLR to
a direct neighbor) does not follow the IGP shortest path. In this
case, the PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel path whose first
hop is along a link whose cost or reverse cost is LSInfinity (for OSPF)
or the maximum cost (for IS-IS) or, has the overload bit set (for IS-IS)
2. The IS-IS overload bit and the mechanism of [RFC6987]
only prevent transit traffic from traversing a node. They do
not prevent traffic destined to a node. The per-neighbor
forwards SPFs using the standard IGP overload rules will not
prevent a PLR from choosing a repair tunnel endpoint that is
advertising a desire to not carry transit traffic. Therefore, the
PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel endpoint with the IS-IS
overload bit set, or where all outgoing interfaces have the
cost set to LSInfinity for OSPF.
Please can you verify that I have not done anything bad in the
editing.
I am trying to figure out if I need more OSPF and ISIS refs. I could
argue that anyone that needs to implement this will know them
and anyone that needs the ref should not be implementing it :)
However I am not sure the IESG will agree :)
Stewart
On 30/05/2014 13:28, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Chris
I would like to take this together with final review coments
from the WGCs
Stewart
On 28/05/2014 19:54, Chris Bowers wrote:
See inline [CB] for comment on the new section 4.4.
Chris
*From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Friday, May 23, 2014 10:11 AM
*To:* Chris Bowers; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-05
On 23/05/2014 13:43, Chris Bowers wrote:
Authors,
Below are two comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-05.
1) A section should be added to the document clarifying
what the expected behavior is for RLFA when routers
advertise themselves as not desiring to carry transit
traffic or links have been costed out. RFC5286 has a
useful section on this topic entitled “Interactions with
IS-IS Overload, RFC 3137, and Costed Out Links”. The
current document would benefit from additional clarity in
this topic.
New section 4.4.
The consideration concerning interactions with IS-IS Overload,
[RFC3137],
and costed out links as described in [RFC5286] apply. In
selecting a PQ
node a PLR MUST exclude any candidate that is reachable
(including via ECMP)
from the PLR via a path subject to one of the above exclusions.
The method of determining the exclusion is a local matter.
[CB] I think the following text explains the expected behavior
more clearly.
“Since normal IGP routing takes into account the IS-IS
overload bit , RFC 3137, and costing out of links, the forward
SPFs performed by the PLR rooted at neighbors of the PLR also
need to take this into account. Therefore a repair tunnel
path from a neighbor of the PLR to a repair tunnel endpoint
will generally avoid the nodes and links excluded by the IGP
overload/costing out rules. However, there are two situations
where this behavior may result in a repair path traversing a
link or router that should be excluded.
1) The first hop on the repair tunnel path (from the PLR to a
direct neighbor) does not necessarily follow the IGP shortest
path. Therefore, the PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel path
whose first hop is along a link whose cost or reverse cost is
LSInfinity (for OSPF) or the maximum cost (for IS-IS) or, has
the overload bit set (for IS-IS).
2) The IS-IS overload bit and the mechanism of RFC 3137 only
prevent transit traffic from traversing a node. It does not
prevent traffic destined to a node. So the per-neighbor
forwards SPFs using standard IGP overload rules will not
prevent a PLR from choosing a repair tunnel endpoint that is
advertising a desire to not carry transit traffic. Therefore,
the PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel endpoint with the IS-IS
overload bit set (or all outgoing interfaces with cost set to
LSInfinity for OSPF). “
2) The current document doesn’t appear to say anything
about the expected behavior of RLFA when the IGP has
multiple areas or levels. It would be useful to either
address this topic, or explicitly narrow the scope of the
document to describing the behavior when the IGP has a
single area or level.
I have added to the bottom of the intro:
This document considers the case when the repair path is
confined to either a
single area or to the level two routing domain. In all other
cases, the chosen
PQ node should be regarded as a tunnel adjacency of the
repairing node,
and the considerations described in Section 6 of [RFC5286] taken
into account.
- Stewart
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
