Aijun Wang <wangaijun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi, Robert: Fragments and Glue procedures is one normal, mature process for any slicing application. We needn’t another document to standardize it again. The knob for the segmentation is the information “what concerns a key”, which is what you mentioned should be in one wiki like online form. If the LSR WG can formalize such “online form”, and this document refer to it for the future implementation and interoperability guarantee, then I can support its forwarding. BUT, it seems impossible to define explicitly such “online form”. And to Chris: if you think “what constitutes a key” is one well-known knob for vendors, why the document illustrate explicitly such information for TLV 22 and TLV 135? And how can you assure different vendors will use the same information for “what constitutes a key” for each IS-IS code point?
Aijun, You have asked this many times and been answered repeatedly; however, I will answer it again, if only to make it clear to the folks reviewing the appeal. Please stop thinking about Multi-TLV for a minute. How does IS-IS tell one neighbor TLV (or whatever) from another -- in regular deployed IS-IS? That is the "key" data. The "key" data *has* to already be agreed upon by all implementations or regular IS-IS would not function -- it would literally not function. There is nothing new to define. Thanks, Chris.
It’s better to answer such question clearly, reasonably than to
declare in rush that document reaches the WG consensus.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Nov 12, 2024, at 08:00, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Aijun,
Let's make sure that my observation in respect to key elements
clarification for each TLV does not equal to the request to
"ABANDON" this useful document.
I do find the ability to fragment and glue TLVs as a useful
protocol extension. What should be sent in each fragment perhaps
is obvious to familgia of long time ISIS developers .. so my only
hint was to simply publish this in some online form.
Rgs,
Robert
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:45 AM Aijun Wang <
wangaijun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Robert and Mach:
Thanks for your comments on this document.
It reveals clearly the issues existing within the documents.
The Chairs declare repeatedly this document reached WG
consensus, apparently it DOESN’T.
I have submitted the appeal to IESG.
Wish more experts to stand out to ABANDON this error prone,
pitfall solution being published under the name of LSR, or
IETF.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Nov 12, 2024, at 06:55, Robert Raszuk <
robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Les,
> Link identifiers are indeed sub-TLVs.
> That does not disqualify them from being part of “key”
information.
Oh, it was not clear from the draft. Perhaps you can add
this detail in the next rev.
- - -
If you have multiple parallel links today they will all
be listed in the sub-TLVs - so they are ok spec wise
today.
I am not sure however - assuming you do not include
"Example" in section 4.1 that everyone would be adding
them to each TLV fragment.
// But then we have hackathons and interop venus where
interop bugs can be quickly found and fixed
// if this is how it should all work out.
That is why I do believe a sort of dictionary would be
nice to have in either a normative spec or reference to
such a document or even as a simple wiki page :).
Best,
Robert
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Robert –
Link identifiers are indeed sub-TLVs.
That does not disqualify them from being part of
“key” information.
If I have multiple parallel links between two
routers, this is how the links are uniquely
identified. Such information is essential to
correctly identify the link attribute information
which in turn is essential for applications such as
RSVP-TE, SR=TE, and flex-algo to operate correctly.
If you think this is underspecified, I presume you
think it is not possible for these applications to
work correctly today – which obviously is not the
case.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 2:16 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; Christian
Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mach Chen <mach.chen=
40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Routing ADs <
rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx>; rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx;
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr <
lsr@xxxxxxxx>; last-call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Last Call Review:
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
Les,
I note that in all of these emails expressing
concern no one has provided a single example
RFC5305 defines Extended IS Reachability TLV as:
The proposed extended IS reachability TLV contains
a new data
structure, consisting of:
7 octets of system ID and pseudonode number
3 octets of default metric
1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
Now your draft makes an impression that there are
also at the TLV level itself optional link
identifiers.
4.1. Example: Extended IS Reachability
As an example, consider the Extended IS
Reachability TLV (type 22).
A neighbor in this TLV is specified by:
* 7 octets of system ID and pseudonode number
* 3 octets of default metric
* Optionally one or more of the following link
identifiers:
- IPv4 interface address and IPv4 neighbor
address as specified
in [RFC5305]
- IPv6 interface address and IPv6 neighbor
address as specified
in [RFC6119]
- Link Local/Remote Identifiers as specified
in [RFC5307]
Can you point to the text in RFC5305 where such IPv4
link identifier is defined ?
I can only find them to be defined as part of
sub-TLVs.
Also I do not see them as LSDB keys in FRR ISIS code
...
Ref: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/
isisd/isisd.c
Thx,
R.
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mach
Chen <mach.chen=40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Routing ADs <rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx>; rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx;
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr <
lsr@xxxxxxxx>; last-call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Last Call Review:
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
Speaking as WG member:
On Nov 11, 2024, at 15:21, Robert Raszuk <
robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Christian,
Thank you for your answer. I remain educated
that LSR WG born RFCs are only for those who
implement protocol and have years of
experience in doing so.
I was obviously wrong thinking RFCs are
designed to also help operators to run and
troubleshoot network problems. Or maybe say
wireshark or tcpdump developers to properly
decode stuff which shows up on the wire ...
And if this is so obvious, what is the
problem for someone with such experience to
sit down and write down a BCP
dict listing what in his opinions should be
used as a key for each TLV listed in section
8.2 ? If done weeks before we would not have
such discussion.
If done correctly, this document would be
welcomed. However, it should be a gating factor
on specification of IS-IS MP-TLVs.
Thanks,
Acee
Kind regards,
Robert
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 9:05 PM Christian
Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As was pointed out on the list, anyone
implementing IS-IS knows exactly what a
key is b/c it’s literally the value they
use to differentiate TLVs from one
another — IOW *A KEY VALUE*. You don’t
consider 2 neighbor TLVs to be different
neighbors (and allocate a neighbor
structure to store in your DB of
neighbors) based on the TLV metric value.
This really is obvious when people stop
treating the discussion as some
abstraction which is again what people
keep pointing out.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Nov 11, 2024, at 08:13, Robert
Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> > The WG explicitly decided it was
inappropriate to have this document
re-define
> > every "key" for every possible TLV as
these "key" values are already defined
> > by the documents that define the TLV;
>
> I have followed this discussion on the
list.
>
> It seems to be as a side observer that
folks questioning the WGLC and
progressing the document do have a valid
point.
>
> The document by its title and by
section 8.2 creates an impression that it
is a universal spec for all TLVs in
respect how to implement MP-TLVs for
them.
>
> Yet we clearly see from examples
provided in sections 4.1 and 4.2 that
what constitutes a "key" is TLV dependent
and it is really cherry picked out of the
number of values carried in a TLV.
>
> An example from section 4.1: In TLV 22
- 3 octets of def metric is skipped and
not considered as a key
>
> An example from section 4.2: In TLV 135
- 4 octets of metric information and two
bits of control information octet are
skipped and not considered as a key
>
> So if an implementer takes this
document and attempts to write up MP-TLV
how is he going to figure out which
values for all other listed TLVs in 8.2
constitute a key and which not ?
>
> IMO this document can proceed however
only in respect to TLV 22 and TLV 135 and
both its title and content should reflect
this.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM
Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Mach Chen <mach.chen=
40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hello，
> >
> > I have been selected as the Routing
Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> > Routing Directorate seeks to review
all routing or routing-related drafts as
> > they pass through IETF last call and
IESG review, and sometimes on special
> > request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> > For more information about the
Routing Directorate, please
> > see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/
rtg/RtgDir
> >
> > Although these comments are primarily
for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> > be helpful if you could consider them
along with any other IETF Last Call
> > comments that you receive, and strive
to resolve them through discussion or by
> > updating the draft.
> >
> > Document: https://
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
> > Reviewer: Mach Chen
> > Review Date: 2024-11-11
> > IETF LC End Date:
> > Intended Status: Standards Track
> >
> > Summary:
> > • I have some major and minor
concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.
> >
> > Comments:
> > • The document is well written and
easy to read it.
> >
> > Major Issues:
> > 1. The definitions of the 'Key' for
TLVs and sub-TLVs vary, and this document
> > does not specify the Key for each
MP-TLV. Therefore, it may result in
> > interoperability issues if
implementations use different information
to
> > construct the 'Key.' Given Section
8.2 listed all existing applicable
MP-TLVs,
> > it's essential to specify the Key for
each of those MP-TLVs, either within this
> > document or in a separate document to
which this document should provide a
> > normative reference.
>
> Hi Mach,
>
> I'm curious if you also followed along
on the extensive discussions on this
exact issue on the LSR list or not?
>
> Understanding your exposure to this
would help with how to address any
remaining confusion about this directly
in the draft.
>
> The WG explicitly decided it was
inappropriate to have this document
re-define every "key" for every possible
TLV as these "key" values are already
defined by the documents that define the
TLV; however, documenting that choice and
the reasoning better may still be
necessary.
>
> So my question is this: were you
following along with this discussion in
the LSR WG and find yourself disagreeing
with the WG decision, or is this entire
topic new to you?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>
> >
> > Minor Issues:
> > 1. The MP-TLV Capability
Advertisement is defined as a node-based
capability
> > rather than on a per-codepoint basis,
which limits its usefulness. In some
> > cases, it may even be misleading if
operators just rely on this capability to
> > assume MP-TLV support. Therefore, it
would be preferable to either remove this
> > capability advertisement or redefine
it to operate on a per-codepoint basis.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list -- lsr@xxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to
lsr-leave@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-leave@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-leave@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
