Lucy,
1. Constraining the distribution of Leaf A-D routes.
If you look at sections 9.2.3.2.1 and 9.2.3.4.1 of RFC 6514, you'll see
that there are some rules that enable you to avoid sending a Leaf A-D
route on an EBGP session unless a corresponding I/S-PMSI A-D route was
received over that se
> Jeffrey
>
> >
> >
> > Lucy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:52 AM
> > To: Lucy yong; Eric Ros
Original Message-
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:25 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Eric Rosen
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> H
gt; -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Lucy yong; Eric Rosen; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> So it&
Lucy,
> -Original Message-
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:16 AM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Eric Rosen
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf
, September 23, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Lucy yong; Eric Rosen; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
So it's not "BGP session keeps track"; and what's your policy like?
Back to your proposals:
>Two potential optimizations I
exactly the proposal for 1) and 2)?
Jeffrey
> -Original Message-
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:48 AM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Eric Rosen
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess
-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Lucy,
Perhaps you can elaborate the following then?
There is no BGP session between N1/N2 and N3. RR does not understand
"upstream/downstream" neighbor.
Even on N1/N2/N3, upstream/downstream are wrt
et]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:28 AM
> To: Lucy yong; Eric Rosen; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> Lucy,
>
> The point is that we rely on BGP distribution mechanism, and we cannot
>
015 10:26 AM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Eric Rosen
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We seem across each other. Two potential optimizations I proposed: 1)
> suppress unnecessary
aohui) Zhang ; Eric Rosen
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We seem across each other. Two potential optimizations I proposed: 1)
> suppress unnecessary redistribution; 2) method for ch
) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Lucy yong; Eric Rosen; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Lucy,
Let's use this example to illustrate the points we tried to get through:
com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:58 AM
> To: Eric Rosen ; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> When non-segmented ingress replication is used, the
Hi Eric,
When non-segmented ingress replication is used, the ingress PE needs to see the
Leaf A-D routes from all the egress PEs. (The ingress PE is the upstream
parent in this case, even if the ingress PE is not a BGP peer of the egress
PEs.) This means that the RT on the Leaf A-D routes nee
Hi Eric,
Please see inline below with [Lucy1]
-Original Message-
From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:20 PM
To: Lucy yong; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] comment on draft-ietf
Hi Lucy,
[Lucy] A parent for a mcast group can not consider the route to have
been withdrawn and replaced because of RT is not indicate the parent.
The parent must check if the leaf A-D for the mcast is from its child.
There is a case, a parent for a mcast group receives an leaf A-D of the
group
-Original Message-
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:41 PM
To: Lucy yong; Eric Rosen; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Lucy,
[Lucy] ... If we
nal Message-
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:30 PM
> To: Eric Rosen ; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> ; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
>
>
> Hi Eric
Hi Eric,
Please see inline below,
-Original Message-
From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:36 AM
To: Lucy yong; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; draft-ietf-bess...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
> Th
Think more about using BGP mechanism to achieve the make before
break at a child.
The child can do it without parent cooperation. When a child changes
the parent for a Leaf A-D route, it first sends out the route with
the new parent address encoded in RT; when old parent receives the
route, it do
; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
> However, a child can use one leaf A-D with the new parent with a new
> label and later send withdraw leaf A-D to the old parent
Lucy,
Note that "both&q
ess...@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Lucy,
If downstream neighbor n1 relies on IP forwarding, it can discard the packet
associated with k2 after an IP lookup. But if it does not (e.g., it uses label
switching - b
Hi Jeffery,
Please see inline below.
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:10 AM
To: Lucy yong; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Lucy,
If downstream neighbor n1
] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Lucy,
It is certainly true that the BGP route distribution mechanism is not optimal
for multicast signaling. The advantages and disadvantages of using BGP for
multicast signaling were discussed extensively in the WG when RFCs 6513 and
6514 were being
Hi Lucy,
It is certainly true that the BGP route distribution mechanism is not
optimal for multicast signaling. The advantages and disadvantages of
using BGP for multicast signaling were discussed extensively in the WG
when RFCs 6513 and 6514 were being written. But the entire mechanism is
On 9/2/2015 9:47 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Let me clarify, I suggest to relax the second rule in Section 6.2, i.e.
no need to require N to have exact same set of downstream neighbors in
two tunnels. For example, if K1 has downstream neighbors n1~n10 and K2
has downstream neighbors n2-n10. N node can a
it's better to have precise/hard rules on label allocation.
Jeffrey
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ;
draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Jef
Hi Eric,
Please see below.
-Original Message-
From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:15 PM
To: Lucy yong; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
> Howe
@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Lucy,
> The relaxed rule make easier to qualify the condition.
Section 6.2 and section 9 are independent. Section 6.2 is about sharing label
(for the same parent) among two different tunnels; section 9 is about the child
picking a
015 4:08 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ;
draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Lucy yong;
draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
However, a child can use one leaf A-D with the new
parent with a new label and later send withdraw leaf A-D to the old
parent
Lucy,
Note that "both" of Leaf A-D routes you mention above have the same NLRI
and the same next hop. Thus to BGP, these are really the same route.
What you are sugg
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Lucy yong; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Lucy,
Please see zzh2> below.
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.
Lucy,
Please see zzh2> below.
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:48 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ;
draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Jeffery,
Thank you for your quick re
Please see inline.
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:45 PM
To: Lucy yong; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Two corrections - thanks for Eric to point out:
> Whe
changes in Section 6.2 and 9.
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:27 PM
To: Lucy yong; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Lucy,
Please see zzh> below.
From: BESS
frey
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:27 PM
To: 'Lucy yong' ; draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Lucy,
Please see zzh> below.
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy
Hi Lucy,
Please see zzh> below.
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 1:35 PM
To: draft-ietf-bess...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] comment on draft-ietf-bess-ir
Hi Authors,
The draft is well written. Some simper imp
37 matches
Mail list logo
