[Nsi-wg] review of draft-gfd-r-nsi-policy-public-commentv3_RHJ

[Hans Trompert]

Hi Guy,

This Wednesday would be fine but I do not know if it clashes with the I2
Global Summit for other participants. Next Wednesday is fine as well.

Cheers,
    HansT.

On 16/05/16 15:45, Guy Roberts wrote:
>
> Hello Hans,
>
>  
>
> Thanks for you feedback on the NSI Policy document.
>
>  
>
> Could you please suggest a Wednesday that would you be available for
> call to discuss these questions?
>
>  
>
> Guy
>
>  
>
> *From:*nsi-wg [mailto:nsi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] *On Behalf Of *Hans Trompert
> *Sent:* 13 May 2016 11:52
> *To:* OGF NSI Work Group
> *Subject:* [Nsi-wg] review of draft-gfd-r-nsi-policy-public-commentv3_RHJ
>
>  
>
> Dear NSI WG colleagues,
>
> I have read the version of the Policy document that was already
> reviewed by Richard and tried to assess if the document is
> sufficiently clear to actually implement the pathTrace extension in a
> aggregator or uPA. There are three things that are not completely
> clear to me yet.
>
> I agree with Richard that it is not clear how a uPA can determine the
> order number for its segment, especially in the tree scenario. It is
> stated in the document that an AG that has done additional path
> finding must assemble the child path in topological order, that sounds
> reasonable because the AG is the only one aware of the order of the
> segments and not the uPA, and what about other AG down the tree that
> do additional path finding and will return traces with more then one
> segment, is any AG allowed to renumber segments or lists of segments
> from its childeren before it sends the trace upstream?
>
> It is not clear to me if in any NSI deployment it is mandatory for all
> NSA to either do implement or do not implement the pathTrace extension
> or if it is allowed to have a mixed deployment. If the latter is
> allowed questions like the following come to mind:
>
>   * what if an uPA does not implement the pathTrace extension, does an
>     AG has to check the reserve.cf coming up if it contains an
>     expected pathTrace?
>   * what if an AG, not being the root AG, does not support the
>     pathTrace extension, and lets assume that this AG does
>     transparently forward all NSI header elements it does not know
>     about, it cannot aggregate the pathTrace information from its
>     childeren and can only at best collect all pathTrace's from its
>     children and add them as separate traces to the reserve.cf going up
>   * What if the root AG does not support pathTrace but a sub tree with
>     an AG with an associated set op uPA does, then that sub tree AG
>     will act as root AG and the uPA of that sub tree will only see
>     part of the path in the rsvcommit.rq coming down and not the
>     complete end to end path
>
> It is not clear to me if both an AG and uRA are allowed to terminate
> an reservation that has failed segments due to policy violations, or
> that we just trust on normal reserveCommit.fl processing and leave the
> termination of the request up to the uRA?
>
> Cheers,
>     HansT.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20160517/533dd405/attachment.html>