I agree with the points raised by Mustapha.
Thanks,
Pranjal
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui,
Mustapha (Mustapha)
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:22 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to
LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard
Hi Adrian and all,
I was the one who raised the interop issues we found while testing our
implementation of LDP IPv6 against existing and deployed implementations. I
proposed a simple method of using the existing FEC advertisement capability at
the session level as a way for an LSR to detect if an implementation support
LDP IPv6 FECs and IPv6 addresses. This existing FEC advertisement capability at
session level is defined in draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability-08 but with
the limitation that it can be used only to disable support of IPv6 FECs in LDP
Initialization Message; we proposed to generalize the method to also indicate
explicit support for IPv6 FECs and IPv6 Addresses in LDP Initialization
Message. This method is safe and was also used with mLDP P2MP and MP2MP FECs
when they were introduced. The intent here is that all session level
capabilities in LDP should follow RFC 5561 approach.
There was an individual contributor which supported the proposal on the mailing
list but the authors chose to ignore it and went with a proposal which
overloaded the meaning of the dual-stack capability TLV. Regardless of the
merit of either method, the discussion on the MPLS mailing list was not closed
properly from my perspective.
Now here is the concern I raised with using the dual-stack capability. Not only
this TLV is an adjacency level feature which is has nothing to do with FEC
capability advertisement, but it is introducing complexity in the
implementation which now has to check dual-stack capability for *each*
adjacency to the peer *and* the session level FEC capability to decide what the
peer is capable of at the *session level*.
Having said that, I want to keep the spirit of cooperation and make sure we get
this draft published. To that effect, I am not opposed to its publication as
long as the following points are clarified in the draft since now FEC
capability of the LSR peer is determined by a check a both adjacency and
session levels:
1. The draft is missing the behavior when multiple adjacencies exist to the
same LSR and the peer LSR advertised the dual-stack capability only over a
subset of these Hello adjacencies.
I assume here the peer LSR is considered to be dual-stack capable as soon as
any of the Hello adjacencies includes the dual-stack capability. This would
allow a hitless upgrade scenario from an older implementation to one which
complies to this draft
2. Similarly, what would be the behavior if a hello adjacency changes from
sending the dual-stack capability to not sending it? This would be for example
in a hitless downgrade to a version of LDP which does not comply to this draft.
I assume here that the session must be bounced since the LSRs need a clean
state to not send IPv6 addresses and IPv6 FECs.
3. The document defines 2 values for the dual-stack capability TR. It does not
mention the behavior when an unknown value is received.
Will that be considered a fatal error?
4. The draft is missing the behavior of when the peer LSR does not advertise
the dual-stack capability in all the Hello adjacencies but it advertised the
enabling or disabling of the IPv6 prefix FEC capability in the session
initialization message.
I assume here that the absence of the dual-stack capability overrides any
session level IPv6 FEC prefix capability advertisement.
5. The draft is missing the behavior of when the peer LSR does not advertise
the dual-stack capability in all the Hello adjacencies but it advertised the
enabling of the IPv6 prefix FEC capability in the session Capability message.
I assume the same behavior as in (4) applies here.
Regards,
Mustapha.
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:37 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates
to LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Updates to LDP for IPv6'
<draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> mailing lists by
2014-12-18. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> instead.
In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specification defines
procedures to exchange label bindings over either IPv4, or IPv6 or
both networks. This document corrects and clarifies the LDP behavior
when IPv6 network is used (with or without IPv4). This document
updates RFC 5036 and RFC 6720.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls