Dear Pushpasis,
I've read the new version of the draft, and I find some ambiguous
statements/terms and mistakes. Sorry that I did not read it before the
4th revision.
1)Terms:
To be consistent, in Section 2. first-hop should be named/termed as
next-hop, since in each latter case it is termed as next-hop (or nexthop).
And later the term primary node also rises the question whether it means
next-hop, or something else.
2)Ambiguous things:
On page 4, the Topology 2 introduced in Fig.2., is a bit ambiguous,
since we are talking about (remote) *loop-free* alternates, but some
cells in Table 2's Remote-LFA Back Path column contain loops, namely
S=>N=>E=>R3->E->D1,S=>N=>E=>R3->E. In my opinion, this case can be
understood if I take a look on the topology over and over again (to find
and indentify remote LFAs), but according to RFC 7490, shouldn't we rely
on simple LFA (node N in the topology) in such cases when they are
available?
Probably a better and unambiguous example topology would be better, or
it should be stated that in such case node N could be a pure
link-protecting LFA.
3)Mistake:
Section 2.2.1 on page 6 states the following about link protecting
extended P-space:
"A node Y is in link-protecting extended P-space w.r.t to the link (S-E)
being protected, if and only if, there exists at least one direct
neighbor of S, Ni, other than primary nexthop E, that satisfies the
following condition.
D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,S) + D_opt(S,Y)"
The document also states that this inequality is already defined in RFC7490.
However, this inequality seems to be wrong, or it is not properly prepared.
To me, in essence, this inequality states (assuming that Y is the
neighbor of Ni) is that my neighbor's (Ni) neighbor (Y) is closer to my
neighbor (Ni) than me (S), which is almost every time true, but what if
my neighbor's (Ni) neighbor (Y) is my (S) neighbor as well?
Consider the topology below, where 'x' denotes only the failure on link
S-E, while all the links are of unit cost except the link Ni-Y, where
the cost is 2:
Y
2/ \
Ni--S--x--E
| /
B D
\ /
\ /
\ /
A
In this case, Y does not fulfill the inequality stated above, however,
it's in extended P-space, moreover, it's in P-space as well, and as far
as I remember, ext.P-space always consists of the (smaller) P-space.
I think the main problem here is that there is no cross-reference to the
failed link itself (as it is in node-protecting P-space inequality).
Therefore, this could be resolved by the following inequality:
D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,S) + D_opt(S,E) + D_opt(E, Y)
Or, the statement should emphasize in the beginning that node Y is not
in the P-space of S w.r.t. the failed link S-E.
Pls tell me if I'm wrong.
Btw, the inequality for node-protecting extended P-space is valid.
4)
Section 2.2.3
"The Remote-LFA [RFC7490] draft already defines this. The Q-space for a
link S-E being protected is the set of routers that can reach primary
node E,..."
In this case, the term primary node is again equivocal, since if it
means next-hop, then the definition is wrong. RFC7490 defines Q-spaces
for the routers/nodes, however, if we talk about to find a remote LFA
for a given source-destination pair w.r.t. a failed element, then (ext.)
P-space of the source, and the Q-space of the destination should be
evaluated/calculated (w.r.t. the failed element).
Later, in section 2.2.5.:
"A node Y is in candidate node-protecting PQ space w.r.t to the node(E)
being protected, if and only if, *Y is present in both node-protecting
extended P-space and the Q-space for the link being protected.*"
To me, the term "..Q-space for the link being protected" is again not
properly stated.
5)
My final problem probably remains my problem :), but from section 2.2.5,
there are a lot of reference to the term PQ-space, or PQ-node, for
instance, in section 2.3.1:
"As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, to consider a PQ-node as candidate
node-protecting PQ-node, there must be at least one direct neighbor Ni
of S, such that all shortest paths from Ni to the PQ-node does not
traverse primary nexthop node E."
or
"To determine if a given candidate node-protecting PQ-node provides
node-protecting alternate for a given destination, the primary nexthop
node should not be on any of the shortest paths from the PQ-node to the
given destination."
and it occurs in many sentences.
Basically what a bit confusing here is that according to RFC7490, if a
set of routers is termed PQ-nodes, or even PQ-space, then they already
fulfill the inequalities for (ext.) P-space and Q-space. So, in the
above-mentioned sentences, it's a bit confusing why are we checking
Q-space inequality if it's already a PQ-node. Probably better placements
of the word "candidate" could resolve this issue, or we should rely on
"node in P-space" or "node in Q-space" instead of PQ-node candidate.
On the other hand, if we talk about a PQ-node candidate, then it means
(at least to me) that the node fulfills at least one of the
inequalities, i.e., it is already in the Q-space or the (ext.) P-space,
and therefore we say it's a candidate if it fulfills the remaining
inequality as well.
6) Typo on page 10
"As seen in the above example above" -> As seen in the example above
Thanks, and please don't consider my observations offending, I'm just
try to understand the whole concept of remote LFAs and try to help and
improve the draft itself.
Best regards,
Levente
On 10/14/2015 11:51 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote:
Hi Mike,
I have addressed all the comments I have received so far. Here is the updated
version of the draft.
Thanks
-Pushpasis
On 10/14/15, 3:19 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Revision: 04
Title: Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
Document date: 2015-10-14
Group: rtgwg
Pages: 16
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04
Abstract:
The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
[RFC7490] specification guarantees only link-protection. The
resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not
guarantee node-protection for all destinations being protected by it.
This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node
provides node-protection for a specific destination or not. The
document also shows how the same procedure can be utilised for
collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths.
Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is
precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not
fitting constraints.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
