Subject: [bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:15:10 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Alia's Discuss. I see that there's proposed text to resolve
that position. 

I will remain a No-Objection if that proposed text is adopted, but I
would be more comfortable if the proposed text was more specific than
"may not work properly" - is there anything else that can go wrong,
besides unbounded looping?

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:58:25 -0500

Hi Spencer,

I think that the "may not work properly" means that the packet would be
dropped
by the local PE.  The looping issue would happen if the TTL weren't
decremented
and that language is being removed.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:09:14 -0600

Hi, Alia,

> and that language is being removed.

So, that's two different issues? It might be be great to call them out
separately, if so ...

Spencer

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:10:17 -0500

Typed too fast - looping wouldn't happen if the TTL is decremented.  What
would
happen is that the packet would be dropped.  I think the text change shows
that
but happy to poke more :-)

Alia

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:12:31 -0600

Hi, Alia,

> but happy to poke more :-)

Right, I'm talking about the problem where looping happens.

Spencer

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:13:55 -0500

Oh - looping can happen naturally as a result of routing reconvergence.
That's what the TTL is for, in part, to make sure those packets don't loop
forever.

Micro-forwarding loops are common.

Alia

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>> happen is that the packet would be dropped.  I think the text change
>> shows that

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:15:42 -0600

I may be confused ...

> Micro-forwarding loops are common.

Right. I thought we were talking about the case where the TTL isn't
decremented.

Spencer

>>> Typed too fast - looping wouldn't happen if the TTL is decremented.
>>> What would
>>>>> I think that the "may not work properly" means that the packet would
>>>>> be dropped

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:17:37 +0000

On 12/3/15, 10:15 AM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I may be confused ...

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Oh - looping can happen naturally as a result of routing reconvergence.
That's what the TTL is for, in part, to make sure those packets don't loop
forever.

Right. I thought we were talking about the case where the TTL isn't decremented.

Right.  If we change the text in response to Alia's DISCUSS, then the text won't talk about not decrementing the TTL anymore, so no loops would happen then.

Alvaro.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:29:55 -0600

Alvaro,

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On 12/3/15, 10:15 AM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <
> Right.  If we change the text in response to Alia's DISCUSS, then the text
> won't talk about not decrementing the TTL anymore, so no loops would happen
> then.
>

Perfect.

Spencer