Hi Carlos, From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:39 PM To: Acee Lindem <acee@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, mpls <mpls@xxxxxxxx>, "draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@xxxxxxxx>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@xxxxxxxx> 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) <acee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi Carlos, > >From: mpls <mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Carlos Pignataro >(cpignata)" <cpignata@xxxxxxxxx> >Date: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:24 PM >To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Cc: mpls <mpls@xxxxxxxx>, "draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@xxxxxxxx" ><draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@xxxxxxxx>, > mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@xxxxxxxx> >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???? > > > > > >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) > > > > 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, >perhaps. > > > > 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 <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> 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 >>ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2016-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be >>sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >