Subject: Re: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Dieter Beller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:56:31 +0200

Hi Spencer,

thanks for your review comment. We propose the following change to
address your comment (blue text added):

0x04
=
Penultimate node exception

Indicates that the
penultimate
node of the LSP being signaled MAY be shared with the excluded
path even when
this violates the exclusion flags.

The penultimate node exception flag
is typically set when the destination node is single homed (e.g.
EN1 or EN4 in
Figure 1). In such a case, LSP diversity can only be
accomplished inside the
core network up to the egress node and the penultimate hop must
be the same for
the LSPs.

Please let us know if this adequately addresses your comment.

Thanks,

Dieter and co-authors

On 28.08.2017 03:55, Spencer Dawkins
wrote:

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m looking at this text,

0x04 = Penultimate node exception

Indicates that the penultimate node of the LSP being
signaled MAY be shared with the excluded path even when
this violates the exclusion flags.

and wondering whether you could either provide some recommendation about doing
this/not doing this, or give an example of why doing this/not doing this makes
operational sense. The other exceptions do make sense to me, so I’m only
curious about this one.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:51:19 -0500

Hi, Dieter,

On Oct 5, 2017 06:56, "Dieter Beller" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Spencer,

thanks for your review comment. We propose the following change to address
your comment (blue text added):

Indicates that the penultimate node of the LSP being signaled MAY be shared
with the excluded path even when this violates the exclusion flags.

The penultimate node exception flag is typically set when the destination
node is single homed (e.g. EN1 or EN4 in Figure 1). In such a case, LSP
diversity can only be accomplished inside the core network up to the egress
node and the penultimate hop must be the same for the LSPs.

This does, thanks for considering my comment, and I apologize for the delay
in responding - I assume I was thinking about the QUIC interim when you
sent your note.

Deborah, thanks for the nudge!

Spencer

Thanks,
Dieter and co-authors

On 28.08.2017 03:55, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
here:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity/