Lizhong Jin | 1 Aug 08:03 2012
Picon

Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery


Hi Kamran,
Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the detail review, please see inline below.

Regards
Lizhong
 

"Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza <at> cisco.com> wrote 2012/07/25 02:56:49:

> Hello authors/chairs,
>
> As MPLS-RT process, I've reviewed the document. Please see below
> summary and details of my review:
>
> Summary of review
> =================
> a. is the document coherent?
> There are few areas which need more work / clarification.
>
> b. is it useful?
> Yes.
>
> c. is technically sound ?
> Need some more details and clarification on both LDP and BGP
> sections (items listed below under "Detailed comments").
>
> d. is ready to be considered for WG adoption ?
> IMO, the authors need to address/close the main comments [ see below
> ], and publish next rev before WG adoption call.
>
> Detailed comments:
> =================
>
> 1- The document proposed "leaf discovery" procedures. However, it is
> not clear to a reader about exactly what's being discovered:
> Leaf address ? Leaf attributes/capabilities ? [ looking at the later
> sections, one deduces that it is just the leaf node address ].
>
> 2- Similar to #1 above:
>    The document refers to "leaf node information" at several places
> without elaborating more about it.
>    What exactly is this info ? is this just the sender LSR Id ? or
> is it encoded in opaque value of FEC ?
>
> For #1 and #2, need to clarify exactly what does "leaf discovery"
> and "leaf node information" means in terms of contents.
[Lizhong] good catch, it is leaf address discovery. We will fix this in next version.

>
> 3- The document states that leaf discovery is useful for both "root
> initiated" and "leaf initiated" applications.  
> Can you please specify/elaborate more on a use case for leaf
> discovery which benefits an "leaf initiated" app , and how ?
> [ section 2 is not very clear to me for leaf initiated case ] .
> Moreover, later section 4 on "Leaf discovery" only talks about 'root
> initiated apps.
[Lizhong] accurately saying, leaf discovery is useful for mLDP based P2MP/MP2MP LSP multiplexing/aggregating between leaf and root initiated apps. The leaf discovery will not benefit if there is no root initiated apps. Please tell me which sentence leads to some misunderstanding.

>    
> 4- Although document's title/other text suggest applicability to
> both p2mp/mp2mp, it is not made clear in specific sections
>   if procedure listed in those sections are just for p2mp or both
> for p2mp/mp2mp ? Moreover, need to clarify if there are any
> differences in these procedures.
[Lizhong] The procedure in sections are for both P2MP/MP2MP, and the two have no difference in procedures. We will explicitly say that in next version.

>
> 5- LDP capability:
>    The document section 4.1 on T-LDP suggests using/sharing the
> existing mLDP "P2MP" capability [base mLDP RFC 6388].
>    I've few comments in this regards:
>
>    i) The document claims to address both p2mp/mp2mp cases so why
> "P2MP" only capability is negotiated here, whereas mLDP negotiates
> separate p2mp and mp2mp capabilities ?  
[Lizhong] should negotiate p2mp and mp2mp capabilities separately. Will fix this in next version.

>    ii) I am not sure if piggybacking on existing mLDP capabilities
> is right thing .. it should define its own LDP capability.
>
> 6- Use of Label messages:
>    Firstly, this section 4.1 is very thin on LDP protocol detail.
> Need more content.
>  
>    The document section 4.1 specifies use of LDP Label Mapping and
> Withdraw messages (with Imp-Null label) to indicate leaf join/leave.
>    IMO, this is not a good idea to use LDP label messages to convey
> this info for following reasons:
>     i) use of imp-null label in the message to mean something
> special may pose problems if in future imp-null is to be used by any
> application for other reasons.
>     ii) you are making presence of "Label TLV" mandatory in your
> label-wdw messages – which is contrary to LDP spec RFC 5036 which
> specifies "Label TLV" as an optional param. If you need to enforce
> this, this is an "update" to RFC 5036.
>     iii) If leaf and root are directly connected, there will be two
> set of Label mapping/wdw messages exchanged – one for MP LSP and
> other for Leaf-Discovery. These different set carrying "same" FEC
> but potentially different "labels" will be potentially confusing.
>     iv) As per my comment # 2,  what/how would receiver extract leaf
> node info from the rcvd Label-mapping msg. This needs to be clarified.
>  
> Considering above points, the better solution is to use LDP
> Notification with MP Status — I.e. extend/use "MP Status"
> notification to convey leaf join/leave. [ Note : a MP Status
> Notification msg contains both the FEC and the Status code ]. If you
> agree with the use of LDP MP Status, then you should define
> new/separate LDP capability for this extension.
[Lizhong] in the 01 version, we use notification to do the discovery. By using notification, when root node receive the notification message, it is possible that the root node does not have corresponding FEC information (T-LDP session message is faster than direct session message), then the notification message would be discard. That's why we change the discovery by sending label mapping message. I am considering to define a new type of FEC to do leaf discovery, in that case, the problem you raised above would be resolved, and also avoid the problem of notification message.

>
> 7- Leaf address:
>    Refer to section 4.2.1, the "leaf node" information carried in
> BGP is "Leaf node address". Couple of comments:
>     i) Similar information is needed under LDP section.
>     Ii) This document is hardcoding address to an IP type, which is
> not correct. If mLDP root address is generic enough, why define
>         mLDP leaf address as "IP" specific. You should define the
> leaf address in the same way as root address — I.e.
>        [ Address Family, Address ] where Address and its length is
> dictated by the Addr-Family. Please note that your existing
> definition will NOT work for other address families – e.g. For "MT
> mLDP" (draft-iwijnand-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-02), the address is
> in the scope of a given topology.
[Lizhong] OK, will change to AF accordingly in next version.

>
> 8- Typed Wildcard MP FEC:
>   i) The document T-LDP section indicate use of MP FEC in LDP
> message for leaf discovery, but does not indicate Typed WC MP FEC.
>   IMO, this is very important functionality it will be useful to use
> Typed WC MP FEC for "withdrawing" ALL the previous join by the leaf
> towards a root.
>
>    ii) If you refine LDP label procedures and decide to continue
> using label msgs (and not Notification messages), then a root can
> also send Typed Wildcard MP FEC Label-Request message to all
> potential leafs to learn/re-learn leafs for MP FECs as leaf respond
> to Label-Request. This will
[Lizhong] right, will add WC MP FEC. Thanks.

>
> 9- Minor comments:
>
> - section 2 para 2: it can be rephrased - all it is trying to say is
> that an existing MP LSP can be shared amongst
>   different apps - which is currently not being done.
[Lizhong] will make this more clear.

>
> - Terminology: need to fix some incorrect use of terminology - e,g,
> T-LDP is defined as "Target LDP" instead of "Targeted LDP".
> Moreover, the definition of "MP2MP FEC" is not accurate/precise enough.
[Lizhong] will fix the two terminology.

>
> Regards,
> -- Kamran
>
> From: Ross Callon <rcallon <at> juniper.net>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:53:44 -0400
> To: "jeremy.whittaker <at> verizon.com" <jeremy.whittaker <at> verizon.com>,
> "Syed Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza <at> cisco.com>, Vero Zheng <vero.
> zheng <at> huawei.com>
> Cc: Loa Andersson <loa <at> pi.nu>, "George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow <at> cisco.com
> >, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux <at> alcatel-lucent.com>, Ross Callon <
> rcallon <at> juniper.net>, "lizhong.jin <at> zte.com.cn" <lizhong.jin <at> zte.com.cn>, "
> kebo.liu <at> nsn.com" <kebo.liu <at> nsn.com>, "sriganesh.kini <at> ericsson.com" <
> sriganesh.kini <at> ericsson.com>
> Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery
>
> Jeremy, Kamran, Vero;
>  
> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
> draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery
>  
> Note to authors: You have been CC’d on this email so that you can know that
> this review is going on. However, please do not review your own document.
>  
> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
> the document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn’t have to
> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>  
> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and secretary,
> and CC’d to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent
> privately to only the WG chairs.
>  
> Are you able to review this draft by July 27, 2012 (ie, prior to the IETF
> meeting in Vancouver)?
>  
> Thanks, Ross
> (as MPLS WG chair)
>  
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Loa Andersson | 1 Aug 09:49 2012
Picon

Re: Poll for WG adoption for draft-zheng-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05 - Closed

Working Group,

this poll has been closed.

We have accepted the draft as an mpls working group document.

Could the authors please re-publish the draft with no other
changes than file-name, date and version as:

draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-01

/Loa
(ass wg co-chair)

On 2012-07-16 10:37, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working group,
>
> this is to start a two week poll on adopting
> draft-zheng-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05
> as an MPLS working group document.
>
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list (mpls <at> ietf.org).
>
> The poll ends July 31st, 2012.
>
> /Loa
> (mpls wg co-chair)
>

--

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Loa Andersson | 1 Aug 10:16 2012
Picon

Re: Poll for WG adoption for draft-zheng-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05 - Closed

All,

I got the version number wrong it should be
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-00

/Loa

On 2012-08-01 09:49, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> this poll has been closed.
>
> We have accepted the draft as an mpls working group document.
>
> Could the authors please re-publish the draft with no other
> changes than file-name, date and version as:
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-01
>
> /Loa
> (ass wg co-chair)
>
> On 2012-07-16 10:37, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Working group,
>>
>> this is to start a two week poll on adopting
>> draft-zheng-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05
>> as an MPLS working group document.
>>
>> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
>> group mailing list (mpls <at> ietf.org).
>>
>> The poll ends July 31st, 2012.
>>
>> /Loa
>> (mpls wg co-chair)
>>
>

--

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Lizhong Jin | 1 Aug 11:21 2012
Picon

Re: IPR poll draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery


Hi Loa,
Yes, there is IPR that was disclosed to IETF in below link.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1841/

Thanks
Lizhong


>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:55 +0200
> From: Loa Andersson <loa <at> pi.nu>
> To: "mpls <at> ietf.org" <mpls <at> ietf.org>,    "mpls-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org"
>    <mpls-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org>,   Martin Vigoureux
>    <martin.vigoureux <at> alcatel-lucent.com>,
>    draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework <at> tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] IPR poll draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery
> Message-ID: <5017CFC3.9040702 <at> pi.nu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Working Group and authors;
>
> The wg chair are nearly ready to issue a poll to accept
> draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery as a working group document,
> we will run this IPR poll in parallel to the poll on making this
> document a working group document.
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
> draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery?
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
> this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
> IPR. The documents will not advance to the next stage until a response
> has been received from each author and contributor.
>
> If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
> contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
> IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
> Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
>                                               +46 767 72 92 13
>
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
internet-drafts | 1 Aug 11:43 2012
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-00.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : LDP Hello Cryptographic Authentication
	Author(s)       : Lianshu Zheng
                          Mach(Guoyi) Chen
                          Manav Bhatia
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-00.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2012-08-01

Abstract:
   This document introduces a new optional Cryptographic Authentication
   TLV that LDP can use to secure its Hello messages.  It secures the
   Hello messages against spoofing attacks and some well known attacks
   against the IP header.  This document describes a mechanism to secure
   the LDP Hello messages using National Institute of Standards and
   Technology (NIST) Secure Hash Standard family of algorithms.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Loa Andersson | 1 Aug 13:26 2012
Picon

IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability

Working Group and authors;

draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability - the wg chair are nearly ready
to request publication for this draft, but before we do so we need
to make an IPR poll

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability?

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
IPR. The documents will not advance to the next stage until a response
has been received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thanks, Loa
(as MPLS WG co-chair)

--

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

internet-drafts | 1 Aug 15:47 2012
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-05.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Inter-Area P2MP Segmented LSPs
	Author(s)       : Yakov Rekhter
                          Rahul Aggarwal
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-05.txt
	Pages           : 39
	Date            : 2012-08-01

Abstract:
   This document describes procedures for building inter-area point-to-
   multipoint (P2MP) segmented service LSPs by partitioning such LSPs
   into intra-area segments and using BGP as the inter-area routing and
   label distribution protocol. Within each IGP area the intra-area
   segments are either carried over intra-area P2MP LSPs, using P2MP LSP
   hierarchy, or instantiated using ingress replication.  The intra-area
   P2MP LSPs may be signaled using P2MP RSVP-TE or P2MP mLDP. If ingress
   replication is used within an IGP area, then MP2P LDP LSPs or P2P
   RSVP-TE LSPs may be used in the IGP area. The applications/services
   that use such inter-area service LSPs may be BGP MVPN, VPLS
   multicast, or global table multicast over MPLS.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Kamran Raza (skraza | 1 Aug 17:58 2012
Picon

Re: IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability

As an author:

I am not aware of any IPR.

Rgds,
-- Kamran

On 12-08-01 7:26 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa <at> pi.nu> wrote:

>Working Group and authors;
>
>draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability - the wg chair are nearly ready
>to request publication for this draft, but before we do so we need
>to make an IPR poll
>
>Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
>draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability?
>
>If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
>(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
>If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
>this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
>IPR. The documents will not advance to the next stage until a response
>has been received from each author and contributor.
>
>If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
>contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
>IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>Thanks, Loa
>(as MPLS WG co-chair)
>
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
>Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
>Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
>                                              +46 767 72 92 13
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls <at> ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

internet-drafts | 1 Aug 18:22 2012
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Return Path Specified LSP Ping
	Author(s)       : Mach(Guoyi) Chen
                          Wei Cao
                          So Ning
                          Frederic Jounay
                          Simon Delord
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2012-08-01

Abstract:
   This document defines extensions to the failure-detection protocol
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   known as "LSP Ping" that allow selection of the LSP to use for the
   echo reply return path.  Enforcing a specific return path can be used
   to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping
   robustness.  It may also be used by Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) for MPLS bootstrap signaling thereby making BFD for
   MPLS more robust.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Mach Chen | 1 Aug 18:43 2012

Re: Closed: working group las call on draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-05.txt

Hi Loa,

We have just uploaded a new version
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06) that had
addressed the WG Last Call comments. 

Here is the diff since last version: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-06.txt

Many thanks,
Mach
________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org [mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org] on behalf of Loa Andersson [loa <at> pi.nu]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 16:45
To: mpls <at> ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping <at> tools.ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Closed: working group las call on       draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-05.txt

Working Group,

this working group last call is closed.

There have been comments that the authors need to address and publish a
new version of the document.

/Loa

On 2012-07-09 17:04, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> this is to start a working group last call on
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-05.txt
>
> Please send your comments to the MPLS wg mailing list (mpls <at> ietf.org).
>
> This working group last call July 23, 2012.
>
> Please note that there is an IPR disclosure against this draft.
>
> /Loa
> for the MPLS working group co-chairs

--

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


Gmane