Hi Robert,
As I have mentioned on the previous mail, there is a conflict on each
scenario.
*Scenario 1: (Entries are conflicting with prefix)*
Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
Entry *E2: <10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24>,
150, 5> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.5.0/24 <http://10.1.5.0/24>, 154>*
* incoming entry is X:*
* Entry X: <10.1.2.0/24
<http://10.1.2.0/24>, 200, 20> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.21.0/24
<http://10.1.21.0/24>, 221>*
entry-X prefix range *10.1.10.0 to 10.1.21.0 *would
conflict with entry *E1 *and *10.1.2.0 to 10.1.5.0* would conflict with *E2*
.
*So, there is a prefix conflict.*
*Scenario 2: **(Entries are conflicting with SID)*
Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
Entry *E2: <7.1.1.0/24 <http://7.1.1.0/24>,
280, 10> *can be expanded up to *<7.1.10.0/24 <http://7.1.10.0/24>, 289>*
* incoming entry is X:*
* Entry X: <3.1.1.0/24 <http://3.1.1.0/24>,
285, 20> *can be expanded up to *<3.1.19.0/24 <http://3.1.19.0/24>, 304>*
entry-X SID *300 *to *304 *would conflict with entry
*E1 *and *SID 285 to 289* would conflict with *E2*.
*So, there is a SID conflict.*
*Scenario 3: **(Entries are conflicting with prefix and SID)*
Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
<http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.31.0/24
<http://10.1.31.0/24>, 321>*
Entry *E2: <5.1.1.0/24 <http://5.1.1.0/24>,
190, 15> *can be expanded up to *<5.1.15.0/24 <http://5.1.15.0/24>, 204>*
* incoming entry is X:*
* Entry X: <10.1.1.0/24
<http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 20> *can be expanded up to *<10.1.20.0/24
<http://10.1.20.0/24>, 219>*
entry-X prefix range *10.1.10.0 to 10.1.20.0 *would
conflict with entry *E1 and **SID 200 to 219* would conflict with *E2*.
*So, there is a Prefix and SID conflict.*
Regards,
_tech.kals_
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Scenario 1 - I do not see any prefix conflict. Those are independent /24
> prefixes.
>
> Scenario 2 - X IP prefix will be installed in RIB but SR labels (entire
> range) will be blocked for X.
>
> Scenario 3 - I do not see any prefix conflict. SR labels (entire range)
> will be blocked for X.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:09 AM, tech_kals Kals <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>> Sorry, I have not included my mapping entries in the previous mail.
>> Please see the example here below.
>>
>> I am working with the RFC which doesn't support *Preference Value, *so
>> please ignore it. And, my mapping entries would looks like.
>> Topology will be a single topology, not a Multi-topology and algorithm
>> would be SPF not CSPF.
>>
>> Please read my entry the below order: *<Prefix-start/ prefix-len,
>> starting SID, range>*
>> * E1 and E2 already configured Active entries. X is the newly incoming
>> entry.*
>>
>>
>> *Scenario 1: (Entries are conflicting with prefix)*
>> Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
>> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>> Entry *E2: <10.1.1.0/24
>> <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 150, 5>*
>>
>> * incoming entry is X:*
>> * Entry X: <10.1.2.0/24
>> <http://10.1.2.0/24>, 200, 20>*
>>
>> * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>>
>> * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>>
>> * # what are the entries would be active and what will become
>> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Scenario 2: **(Entries are conflicting with SID)*
>> Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
>> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>> Entry *E2: <7.1.1.0/24
>> <http://7.1.1.0/24>, 280, 10>*
>>
>> * incoming entry is X:*
>> * Entry X: <3.1.1.0/24
>> <http://3.1.1.0/24>, 285, 20>*
>>
>> * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>>
>> * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>>
>> * # what are the entries would be active and what will become
>> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>>
>>
>> *Scenario 3: **(Entries are conflicting with prefix and SID)*
>>
>> Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24
>> <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>*
>> Entry *E2: <5.1.1.0/24
>> <http://5.1.1.0/24>, 190, 15>*
>>
>> * incoming entry is X:*
>> * Entry X: <10.1.1.0/24
>> <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 20>*
>>
>> * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.*
>>
>> * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.*
>>
>> *# what are the entries would be active and what will become
>> inactive/**excluded entry ?*
>>
>>
>> *Regards,*
>> *__tech.kals__*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It is not possible to answer your query because the way you have
>>> presented your entries (X, E1, E2, E3) does not tell us what conflicts you
>>> have.
>>>
>>> Do you have two SIDs assigned to the same prefix? (Prefix conflict)
>>>
>>> Do you have the same SID assigned to two different prefixes? (SID
>>> conflict)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This matters – see Section 3.3.6 of the draft for an example as to why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please present your example in the form defined in Section 3:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prf - Preference Value (See Section 3.1)
>>>
>>> Pi - Initial prefix
>>>
>>> Pe - End prefix
>>>
>>> L - Prefix length
>>>
>>> Lx - Maximum prefix length (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6)
>>>
>>> Si - Initial SID value
>>>
>>> Se - End SID value
>>>
>>> R - Range value (See Note 1)
>>>
>>> T - Topology
>>>
>>> A - Algorithm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A Mapping Entry is then the tuple: (Prf, Src, Pi/L, Si, R, T, A)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanx.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* tech_kals Kals [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:22 PM
>>> *To:* [email protected]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>>> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); [email protected]
>>> *Subject:* [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Experts,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please explain me what would be the expected behavior in the
>>> following scenario in *Quarantine approach*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mapping entries *E1, E2, E3 *are Active entries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In case, if incoming new entry say *X *which has conflict with *E1,
>>> E2 and E3.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assume, *X is better than E1 but not better than E2. ( E1 < X < E2)*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * 1] X is better than E1 so E1 will become excluded entry and X will
>>> become an active entry*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * 2] Now, X is compared with E2. E2 is better than X. So, X will become
>>> excluded entry and E2 is an active entry as it was.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *So, X and E1 will become "excluded entry".*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *I couldn't find any info as shown above in the RFC. Can you please
>>> clarify ?*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *My doubts:*
>>>
>>> *1) Will the entry become active only if it wins with all entries which
>>> are conflicted with this ?*
>>>
>>> *2) When doing conflict resolution with other entries, it can win with
>>> some entries and can lose to some? What could be the behavior ? *
>>>
>>> * - This is the case which I explained above.*
>>>
>>> * - In this case, X can become active by winning to E1 and lose E2
>>> which leads X and E1 to become inactive/excluded entry.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> can you please clarify ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> __tech.kals__
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
