Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt> (Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 01:02:22 +0000

Hi Carlos,

From: mpls <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:24 PM
To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: mpls <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, mpls-chairs <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt> (Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard

Hi,

One outstanding issue with this document is revisiting and getting to a deliberate position on which RFCs (if any) this document “Updates” (if approved). Currently:

Updates: 4379, 6424, 6790 (if approved)

The authors, shepherd, chairs, and responsible AD have discussed this (i.e., which document(s) are actually “Updated" by draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04). We agree that only RFC 6970 is actually “Updated" by this I-D. The relationship between RFC 4379, RFC 6424 and draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping is that the the I-D extends functionality from those “base” RFCs, without updating text or changing meaning from either.

The draft adds a new multi-path information type to the DDMAP TLV as defined in RFC 6424. So, why doesn’t it update this RFC as well???? Section 1.2 states that the update is applicable to RFC 6424.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:35 AM, The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS
  Network using Entropy Labels (EL)'
 <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> mailing lists by 2016-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
  and Traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
  paths.  Ping is known as a connectivity verification method and
  Traceroute as a fault isolation method, as described in RFC 4379.
  When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC
  6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute operations to discover
  and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where LSRs apply
  different load balancing techniques.  One such scenario is when some
  LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply non-EL
  based load balancing (e.g., IP).  Another scenario is when an EL-
  based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can be EL-based or non-
  EL based.

  This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute multipath
  mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs which
  make use of the EL.  This document updates RFC 4379, RFC 6424, and
  RFC 6790.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2802/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2305/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2546/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2221/

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 01:39:43 +0000

Hi, Acee,

On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

Hi,

The draft adds a new multi-path information type to the DDMAP TLV as defined in RFC 6424. So, why doesn’t it update this RFC as well????

If RFC A defines a TLV space, and RFC B adds one more Type to that TLV, is that an “Update”?  (???)

Our view is that it is not — it’s a natural extension of a protocol (defined to be extended by defining new types) but the procedures of the former are not changed by the existence of the new Type defined in the latter.

Section 1.2 states that the update is applicable to RFC 6424.

It says that RFC 6424 can use the new Multipath Information Type defined. It does not say that the procedures in RFC 6424 change. (that text can be updated though)

Does defining a new OSPF RI TLV update RFC4970/7770? (???)

As an aside, what constitutes an “Update” could use some more precision, perhaps.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Abstract

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 02:04:09 +0000

Hi Carlos, 

From:  "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date:  Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:39 PM
To:  Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Cc:  IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>, mpls <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, mpls-chairs
<[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt>
(Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS
Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard

>
>Hi, Acee,
>
>
>On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Hi Carlos, 
>
>From: mpls <[email-masked]> on behalf of "Carlos Pignataro
>(cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
>To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
>Cc: mpls <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
><[email-masked]>,
> mpls-chairs <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt>
>(Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS
>Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard
>
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>One outstanding issue with this document is revisiting and getting to a
>>deliberate position on which RFCs (if any) this document “Updates” (if
>>approved). Currently:
>>
>>The authors, shepherd, chairs, and responsible AD have discussed this
>>(i.e., which document(s) are actually “Updated" by
>>draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04). We agree that only RFC 6970 is
>>actually “Updated" by this I-D. The relationship between
>> RFC 4379, RFC 6424 and draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping is that the the
>>I-D extends functionality from those “base” RFCs, without updating text
>>or changing meaning from either.
>>
>>
>
>The draft adds a new multi-path information type to the DDMAP TLV as
>defined in RFC 6424. So, why doesn’t it update this RFC as well????
>
>
>
>
>
>Our view is that it is not — it’s a natural extension of a protocol
>(defined to be extended by defining new types) but the procedures of the
>former are not changed by the existence of the new Type defined in the
>latter.
>
>
>It says that RFC 6424 can use the new Multipath Information Type defined.
>It does not say that the procedures in RFC 6424 change. (that text can be
>updated though)
>
>
>
>

The RFC 4379 DMAP TLV is definition and procedures are deprecated by RFC
6424. 

   This document describes methods for performing LSP ping (specified in
   RFC 4379) traceroute over MPLS tunnels and for traceroute of stitched
   MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  The techniques outlined in RFC
   4379 are insufficient to perform traceroute Forwarding Equivalency
   Class (FEC) validation and path discovery for an LSP that goes over
   other MPLS tunnels or for a stitched LSP.  This document deprecates
   the Downstream Mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379) in favor of a new
   TLV that, along with other procedures outlined in this document, can
   be used to trace such LSPs.

However, if this is simply adding a new type w/o changing RFC 6424, then I
would agree with you.

>Does defining a new OSPF RI TLV update RFC4970/7770? (???)

Definitely not. 

>As an aside, what constitutes an “Update” could use some more precision,

I agree - this is a recurring debate.

Thanks,
Acee

>
>Thanks,
>
>— Carlos.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>
>
>   >
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>— Carlos.
>>
>>
>>On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:35 AM, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2016-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 02:09:00 +0000

Hi Acee,

Thanks for the follow-up, please see inline.

On Aug 15, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

From:  "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date:  Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:39 PM
To:  Acee Lindem <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc:  IETF discussion list <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, mpls <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>,
"[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, mpls-chairs
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject:  Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt>
(Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS
Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard

Hi, Acee,

Hi Carlos,

From: mpls <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of "Carlos Pignataro
(cpignata)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:24 PM
To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: mpls <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>,
mpls-chairs <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt>
(Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS
Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard

Hi,

If RFC A defines a TLV space, and RFC B adds one more Type to that TLV,
is that an “Update”?  (???)

Exactly. RFC 6424 updated 4379, in a clear way.

Yes, this draft is adding a new type to the RFC 6424 DDMAP (DSMAP from 4379 is deprecated).

Therefore, this draft does not “update” 6424, but 6424 “updated” 4379.

Definitely not.

Exactly, I meant is as (an extreme, for effect) parallel.

As an aside, what constitutes an “Update” could use some more precision,
perhaps.

Very much so.

Thanks!

— Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Abstract