*Hi Les,* * Thanks for your clarification. It was really helpful.*
* I have few more questions.* * 1) How would you handle identical entries has been populated by more than one Mapping Server at the same time ?* * For example, assume the below mapping entry is populated by Say, Mapping-Server-1 and Mapping-Server-2* * MS-1 entry: 10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 2* * MS-2 entry: 10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 2* * I don't think, the draft talks about this case.* *2) If there is sub-set of identical entries populated by two different mapping servers.* * MS-1 entry: 10.1.3.0/24 <http://10.1.3.0/24>, 200, 2* * MS-2 entry: 10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 198, 5* * In this case, 10.1.3.0, 200; 10.1.4.0, 201 are identical entries. How to handle this scenario ?* *3) Is preference values are configurable per mapping server or per-mapping entry ? * *I mean, once preference value is configured per mapping server then it would be applicable for all mapping entries which are triggered from the mapping server ? Isn't it ?* *I see, All SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements implicitly **have a preference value of 192. It means, preference configured for the node will not applicable for "**prefix reachability advertisements" ? Isn't it ? * *So, the main purpose of preference is to give preference for a specific mapping server ?* *4) One very basic question...* *In case of LDP-SR inter-working, mapping entries are stitched by intersect node. * *Where as in SR-LDP **inter-working, stitching can't be done. Why do we need to use mapping server ? Why cant we use stitching?* *Thanks in adv Les,* *Regards,* *_tech.kals_* On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > wrote: > Kals – > > > > Inline…look for “Les2” > > > > *From:* tech_kals Kals [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 18, 2017 11:40 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Cc:* [email protected]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Stefano Previdi > (sprevidi); [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution > > > > *Hi Les,* > > > > *Thank you so much for your clarification.* > > > > *I have one more question here...* > > > > *1) the newly incoming entry would do conflict resolution validation with > all existing entries and will be programmed only if it doesn't have any > conflict with any entries or if it wins in conflict resolution with all of > them? * > > > > *In this case, the entry will be programmed only if it wins over all > entries, even if it fails with any one of the entry, it would not be added. > But, the entry which fails to win with the new entry also would exists in > the database. It would have not got removed.* > > > > *Is my understanding right ?* > > > > *2) Or when new entry X do conflict resolution validation with each entry > and assume, all entries are having a conflict resolution with this new > entry and the new entry wins over all entries. So, in this case, all of > them gets removed; only new entry would be added.* > > > > *[Les2:] When an entry arrives has no bearing on the application of the > preference rule. Conceptually (I am not talking about actual implementation > details) when the database changes (new entry added, existing entry > modified or deleted) the algorithm must be re-executed on the complete > contents of the database – not just on the changed entries..* > > > > *3) In cisco routers, I observed the below behavior. * > > > > *[Les2:] There currently is no standard. Individual vendors have > implemented whatever seemed best to them at the time. When there is WG > agreement on a standard behavior then it should be expected that > implementations will be modified to conform to the standard. * > > > > * Whenever there is any conflict (prefix/SID) with entries, the entry > which wins if it has lower system-id ( system-id is in the context of ISIS > protocol) though it has higher prefix/SID values. i.e. it seems, > "system-ID" is treated as "preference value". * > > *Why system-ID is being treated as preference value ? Can you please > clarify ?* > > > > > > *Coming back to our discussion, I thinks, there is a conflict with all 3 > entries in all 3 scenarios.* > > > > *Please see my reply inline with <KALS>* > > > > *Regards,* > > *_tech.kals_* > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Kals – > > > > Please look closely at how to determine if there is a conflict. > > From 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) > > Pe = (Pi + ((R-1) << (Lx-L)) > > Se = Si + (R-1) > > > > And Section 3.2.1 > > > > Given two mapping entries: > > > > (Prf, P1/L1, S1, R1, T1, A1) and > > (Prf, P2/L2, S2, R2, T2, A2) > > > > where P1 <= P2 > > > > a prefix conflict exists if all of the following are true: > > > > 1)(T1 == T2) && (A1 == A2) > > 2)P1 <= P2 > > 3)The prefixes are in the same address family. > > 2)L1 == L2 > > 3)(P1e >= P2) && ((S1 + (P2 - P1)) != S2) > > > > The preference rule as defined in the latest version of the draft (02): > > > > 1. Higher preference value wins > > 2. Smaller range wins > > 3. IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry > > 4. Longer prefix length wins > > 5. Smaller algorithm wins > > 6. Smaller starting address (considered as an unsigned integer > > value) wins > > 7. Smaller starting SID wins > > 8. If topology IDs are NOT identical both entries MUST be ignored > > > > Comments inline > > > > *From:* tech_kals Kals [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2017 1:09 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Cc:* [email protected]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Stefano Previdi > (sprevidi); [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution > > > > 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>* > > > > *[Les:] E1 expands to (10.1.10.0/24 <http://10.1.10.0/24> through > 10.1.31.0/24 <http://10.1.31.0/24>) using SIDs 300-321* > > *E2 expands to (10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24> through 10.1.5.0/24 > <http://10.1.5.0/24>) using SIDs 150 -154* > > > > *There is no conflict – both entries are used.* > > > > * incoming entry is X:* > > * Entry X: <10.1.2.0/24 > <http://10.1.2.0/24>, 200, 20>* > > > > *[Les:] X expands to (10.1.2.0/24 <http://10.1.2.0/24> – 10.1.21.0/24 > <http://10.1.21.0/24>) using SIDs 200-219.* > > *There is a prefix conflict with E1.* > > *Preference rule #2 (smaller range) is applied – but the answer one gets > depends on the order in which the entries are processed – a point which I > discussed in my presentation at IETF 96. See Slides 17-20 in* > > *https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-spring-1_ietf97_draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-02-00.pptx > <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-spring-1_ietf97_draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-02-00.pptx>* > > > > *So, if we examine entries in range order (smallest to highest) we find:* > > *E2 has no conflict w X nor with E1.* > > > > *<KALS> * > > > > *There is a conflict between X and E2 also.* > > > > *[Les2:] You are correct – my error.* > > *So, processing entries in range order (smallest to highest)* > > > > *E2 has a conflict with X. X is ignored.* > > *E2 has no conflict with E1.* > > *E1 and E2 are used – X is ignored.* > > > > *Apologies for the confusion.* > > > > > > *E2 expands to (10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24> through 10.1.5.0/24 > <http://10.1.5.0/24>) using SIDs 150 -154* > > *X expands to (10.1.2.0/24 <http://10.1.2.0/24> – 10.1.21.0/24 > <http://10.1.21.0/24>) using SIDs 200-219.* > > > > *Prefix 10.1.2.0 to 10.1.5.0 are conflicting between entry-X and entry-E2.* > > *Will E2 win as they have lower range ?* > > > > *So, only E2 will exist in this case. * > > *E1 will be removed due to conflict with X and X would be removed due to > conflict with E2.* > > > > *Assume, if I have some more entries in the table say E3 to E100, they > will not be participating in the conflict resolution validation as X is > lost to E2 itself. Isn't it ?* > > > > *Is there any criteria that all entries such as E1, E2 and so on should be > in sorted order ? Otherwise, performing validation with all mapping entries > will be difficult if they have not been sorted. Isnt it ?* > > > > *Could you please let me know whether am I right ?* > > > > > > *X has a conflict with E1 – E1 is ignored.* > > *E2 and X are used.* > > > > * 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>* > > > > *[Les:] Again, there is no conflict, both entries are used.* > > > > * incoming entry is X:* > > * Entry X: <3.1.1.0/24 <http://3.1.1.0/24>, > 285, 20>* > > > > *[Les:] There is no prefix conflict but there is a SID conflict.* > > *E1 300 – 321* > > *E2 280 – 289* > > *X 285 – 304* > > > > *Again applying Preference Rule #2 (smallest range wins)* > > *E2 wins over X – X is ignored* > > *E2 has no conflict with E1 – both entries are used.* > > *So E1 and E2 are used and X is ignored.* > > > > > > *<KALS> * > > > > *So, X will be added only if it is not having any conflict with all > existing entries.* > > > > *X will not be validated with other entries once it loses to someone ? Am > i rght ?* > > > > *What will happen if,* > > > > * - the new entry wins with some entries and* > > * - losing to some ?* > > > > *[Les2:] We apply the comparison based on the order of the preference > rules. Once an entry loses it is no longer a candidate for comparison using > any of the lower priority preference rule.* > > > > * Les* > > > > > > * 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>* > > > > *[Les:] Again, no conflict – both entries are used.* > > > > * incoming entry is X:* > > * Entry X: <10.1.1.0/24 > <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 20>* > > > > *[Les:] X has a prefix conflict with E1 – because it has smaller range X > is the winner and E1 is ignored.* > > *X has a SID conflict with E2. E2 has smaller range so X is ignored.* > > *Only E2 is used.* > > *Note that we evaluate prefix conflicts before sid conflicts. Different > results might ensue if we did sid conflicts before prefix conflicts (though > not in this example)* > > > > *The subtleties of ordering in achieving interoperability have not yet > been incorporated into the draft – in part because there is still > discussion about what policy should be used (Ignore, Quarantine, Ignore > Overlap Only). If the WG were to select Ignore as the policy then ordering > would not matter.* > > > > *HTH* > > > > * Les* > > > > * 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
