RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
No.
On the
ring, any traffic (unicast, multicast, broadcast) originated from or terminated
onto a (basic) Bridge will be flooded over the ring.
- Host
transmitting frame with remote destination address (i.e., address that is off
ring) is flooded
- 802.1D/Q compliant bridge floods all
transmitted frames
Traffic not falling into the aforementioned need not be
flooded (i.e., can be sent directly to destination station).
The
aforementioned is required for 802.1D/Q compliance reasons and proper
(intermediate) Bridge FDB updating.
Marc.
Marc,
For destination on
the RPR, you might not flood the packet.
Jim
At 10:41 AM 6/28/2002
-0400, Marc Holness wrote:
In the Basic Bridging proposal,
all packets from the Bridge are flooded over the Ring using a flooding
mechanism.
Marc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anoop
Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 10:10 AM
To: 'Jim Kao'; Anoop Ghanwani
Cc: 'Necdet
Uzun'; Anoop Ghanwani; 'Mike Takefman'; David V. James;
stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE:
Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
Jim,
What you say is correct for the
enhanced bridging
proposal, but those require local
source node
identification anyway. In the
basic bridging proposal,
as far as I understand it,
all packets are flooded.
-Anoop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Kao [mailto:jkao@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:36 PM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: 'Necdet
Uzun'; Anoop Ghanwani; 'Mike Takefman'; David V. James;
> stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:
[RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
>
>
>
Anoop,
>
> Your
example is applied to flooding packet only. For the
> regular known MAC bridge packet, it will take the shortest
path.
> The problem will not be existed.
> What Necdet suggest can apply to the flooding
packet.
>
>
Thanks,
> Jim
>
> At 05:35 PM 6/27/2002 -0700, Anoop Ghanwani
wrote:
>
>
> >Necdet,
>
>
> >I wasn't aware that wrapping was not
intended to
> >work for bridged frames.
All the folks in the BAH group
> >have been
busy scratching their heads for about 4 months
>
>now worrying about how to make this stuff work with both
> >wrapping and steering. Poor fellas (me
included!).
> >
>
>-Anoop
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >
From: Necdet Uzun [mailto:nuzun@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:34 PM
> > > To: Anoop Ghanwani
> >
> Cc: 'Mike Takefman'; David V. James; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of
timeToLive alternatives
> > >
> > >
> > >
Anoop,
> > >
>
> > We do have a do not wrap bit in the packet header. If a
> > > packet is bridged
> > > packet it should set the WE bit right (i.e., do not
WRAP).
> > >
>
> > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Necdet
> > >
> > > Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> > >
> > > >
Mike,
> > > >
> > > > Based on the flooding analysis that was
presented
> > > > at the last meeting,
source stripping is required
> > > >
regardless of whether one does basic or enhanced
> > > > bridging.
> > >
>
> > > > Consider the following
bridging example. Without
> > > >
source-stripping, if we're doing wrapping, and a node
> > > > on the ring dies, the packet will be able to make
its
> > > > way back to the source with
a valid TTL (because one
> > > > of the
nodes that would have decremented TTL has
> >
> > disappeared). If we don't have the source address
> > > > (or some other way to identify the
source) in the
> > > > frame, then the
source will pick up that frame as a
> > >
> regular bridged frame, and will learn the source
> > > > address of the frame as being on the ring, which
is
> > > > incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > If
we're serious about any kind of bridging, I think
> > > > we will need a way to explicitly identify at
least
> > > > the source node (even if
we don't care about
> > > > explicitly
identifying the destination node).
> > >
>
> > > > -Anoop
> > > >
> > > > >
-----Original Message-----
> > > > >
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:09 PM
> > > > > To: David V. James
> > > > > Cc: Anoop Ghanwani;
stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > > > >
Subject: Re: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
> > > > >
> > > >
>
> > > > > David,
> > > > >
> >
> > > I hate to give a legalistic response, but here it
goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are assuming facts not in evidence,
specifically
> > > > > that enhanced
bridging and not basic bridging is
> > >
> > supported. I am a proponent of basic bridging.
> > > > >
> > > >
> This algorithm does not work for basic bridging
> > > > > and hence is flawed. To be clear, the reason
it
> > > > > does not work is that
the the SA of a basic bridge
> > > >
> is not present in the frame.
> > >
> >
> > > > > That being said,
I will look at the algorithms
> > > >
> intent and evaluate it once the WG makes a decision
> > > > > to support enhanced bridging.
> > > > >
> >
> > > As a side note: Its the Canada Day Long weekend coming
> > > > > up, so reponse times will be even
slower, and the
> > > > > US long
weekend is following so we might have to discuss
> > > > > futher in a restaurant in Vancouver.
> > > > >
> >
> > > cheers,
> > > >
>
> > > > > mike
> > > > >
> > > >
> "David V. James" wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > I can see two ways of performing timeToLive
timeouts,
> > > > > > listed
below:
> > > > > > 1)
Source-specified.
> > > > >
> a) Before being sent, the source
sets:
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive=dataBase.hopsToDestination
>
> > > > > b) Special
frame-dependent/topology-dependent
> > >
> > > stuff happens
at the wrap point to prevent
> > > >
> > the estimate in
(a) from becoming incorrect.
> > > >
> > c) Potential multidrop endpoints
check and
> > > > >
> discardframes based
on:
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive==1
> > > > >
> No error is
logged.
> > > > >
> d) Potential duplicates are discarded
based on:
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive==0
> > > > >
> An error is
logged.
> > > > > > 2)
Destination-specified.
> > > > >
> a) Before being sent, the source
sets:
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive=255
> > > > >
> b) Potential multidrop endpoints check
and
> > > > >
> discard frames based
on:
> > > > >
>
frame.DSID=myState.DSID
> > > > >
> c) Potential duplicates are discarded
based on:
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive>database.hopsfFromSource&&
> > > > >
>
frame.timeToLive!=
> > > > >
>
database.hopsFromSource+database.stationsOnRing
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> I believe that the option (2) has several benefits:
> > > > > > i) The
timeToLive field is processed in all frames.
>
> > > > > ii) The timeToLive always means
distance-from-source.
> > > > >
> iii) Error logs are accurate, since timeToLive
frames
> > > > >
> are never discarded during
steady-state operations.
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Can you comments
on your perception of these conclusions?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
DVJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David V. James, PhD
> > > > > > Chief Architect
> > > > > > Network Processing Solutions
> > > > > > Data Communications
Division
> > > > > > Cypress
Semiconductor, Bldg #3
> > > > > >
3901 North First Street
> > > > >
> San Jose, CA 95134-1599
> > > >
> > Work: +1.408.545.7560
> > > >
> > Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> > > >
> > Fax: +1.408.456.1962
> > >
> > > Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
>>-----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > >>From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of
> > > > > Mike
Takefman
> > > > > > >>Sent:
Monday, June 24, 2002 8:17 PM
> > > >
> > >>To: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > >>Cc: Anoop Ghanwani; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>Subject: Re: [RPRWG]
control TTL (the 255-station and
> > > >
> 2000-km issue)
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > > >>That
is a fair request David, and I will do
> >
> > > > >>my best to accomdate it.
> > > > > > >>
>
> > > > > >>Consider instead a host on your ring. Are
you
> > > > > > >>suggesting
that hosts have to behave as
> > > >
> > >>bridges do in terms of learning the mappings
> > > > > > >>of MAC addresses to
bridge IDs?
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > > >>If
so, I believe you are placing an overly
> >
> > > > >>large burden on hosts, one that no other
802
> > > > > > >>standard
has done.
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > >
>>Either way, the scenario I pointed out for bridges
> > > > > > >>(that you deflected by pointing
out that I was
> > > > > >
>>assuming a different scenario (which is fair
> > > > > > >>on your part)) is back. A
bridge flooding a non local
> > > > >
> >>packet for the first time, a host inserting a packet
> > > > > > >>that is off ring, but
does not know which bridge
> > > > >
> >>it exits (which in my world happens for every host
> > > > > > >>packet). If that
station goes off the ring, ttl
> > > >
> > >>will be the only mechanism to stop the double
> > > > > > >>delivery.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Don't get me wrong, I do like
your slick trick,
> > > > > >
>>but your solution is to change the frame format
> > > > > > >>and add new features, whereas I
am working to
> > > > > >
>>fix the currently approved text.
> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >>cheers,
> > > > >
> >>
> > > > > >
>>mike
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > >
>>
> > > > > > >>David
James wrote:
> > > > > >
>>>
> > > > > >
>>> Mike,
> > > > > >
>>>
> > > > > >
>>> I believe part of the problem is that you claiming
> > > > > > >>> something that
is not documented does not fail.
> > > >
> > >>> Its hard to argue, as the definition can
change
> > > > > > >>>
whenever a failure is illustrated.
> > >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> >>> Perhaps you should document the TTL stripping
> > > > > > >>> protocols with
some background text and illustrations?
> >
> > > > >>> And, clearly define the synchronizatoin
points
> > > > > > >>>
with Discovery, that are often implied.
> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >>> In my comments to D0.3 I have done this for
> DSID scoping.
> >
> > > > >>> While this was much easier (since it
doesn't have
> > > > > >
>>> all of TTL stripping exceptions and problems), I believe
> > > > > > >>> its only fair to
ask for you to do the same.
> > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > >
>>> Then, we will be able to analysize a problem,
> > > > > > >>> without the problem
statement constantly changing.
> > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > >
>>> Even after that, there is the basic problem that:
> > > > > > >>> 1) Bidirectional
flooding is required for performance.
> > >
> > > >>> 2) A single-stations failure of (1) generates a
> duplicate
> >
> > > > >>> 3) An multi-station failure of DSID
stripping
> > > > > >
>>> generates no duplicates.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Remember, 2/3 is the
failure scenario you mentioned
> > > >
> > >>> in previous email. Having agreed, I'm a bit
surprized
> > > > > > >>>
this no longer appears to be a concern to you, just
> > > > > > >>> because the repercussions
of that statement changed...
> > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > >
>>> DVJ
> > > > > >
>>>
> > > > > >
>>> David V. James, PhD
> > > >
> > >>> Chief Architect
> >
> > > > >>> Network Processing Solutions
> > > > > > >>> Data
Communications Division
> > > > >
> >>> Cypress Semiconductor, Bldg #3
> > > > > > >>> 3901 North First
Street
> > > > > > >>>
San Jose, CA 95134-1599
> > > > >
> >>> Work: +1.408.545.7560
> >
> > > > >>> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> > > > > > >>> Fax:
+1.408.456.1962
> > > > > >
>>> Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > >>> Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> > -----Original
Message-----
> > > > > >
>>> > From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>> >
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of
> > > > > > >>Mike
Takefman
> > > > > > >>>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:31 PM
> >
> > > > >>> > To: Anoop Ghanwani
> > > > > > >>> > Cc: 'djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
'; 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx '
> > > > >
> >>> > Subject: Re: [RPRWG] control TTL (the 255-station
and
> > > > > 2000-km issue)
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> >
Anoop,
> > > > > > >>>
>
> > > > > > >>> >
For a protection hierarchy to work all nodes
>
> > > > > >>> > need to know about all
failures.
> > > > > > >>>
>
> > > > > > >>> >
I agree with your comment that this needs to be
>
> > > > > >>> > clearly documented as part of the
standard.
> > > > > > >>>
> Futhermore, if the WG decides to accept this
> > > > > > >>> > TTL decrement
algorithm it must be documented
> > > >
> > >>> > properly.
> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >
> > >>> > With regard to your last question /
comment.
> > > > > > >>>
> In wrapping, the adjacent nodes can react
>
immediately if
> > > > > >
>>> > they have the highest priority failure. Thereby
> > > > > > >>> > wrapping
will have quicker reaction times to
> > >
> > > >>> > steering. The need to broadcast in the
wrapping
> > > > > > >>>
> case is to support the hierarchy. If no hierarchy
> > > > > > >>> > was supported, then
the decision could be completely
> > > >
> > >>> > local. In this case I would still argue that
a
> > > > > > >>> >
broadcast of the event was useful for 2 reasons.
> > > > > > >>> > 1) The same algorithm
supports steering which is
> > > > >
> >>> > the default mode
> > > > > > >>> > 2) The packets that
are trapped on the wrong ring
> > > >
> > >>> > will get killed.
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> >
cheers,
> > > > > > >>>
>
> > > > > > >>> >
mike
> > > > > > >>>
>
> > > > > > >>>
>
> > > > > > >>> >
Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> > > > > >
>>> > >
> > > > > >
>>> > >
> > > > > >
>>> > > Mike,
> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > > >
> > >>> > > I was trying to say that when a node
"unwraps" due
> > > > > >
>>> > > to the ring healing, it can't throw away
packets
> > > > > > >>>
> > forever because the ring might wrap at some other
> > > > > > >>> > > place making it
valid for this node to see packets
> > >
> > > >>> > > with the wrap bit set. Therefore
a node would have
> > > > > >
>>> > > to set some kind of timer (on the order of RTT)
and
> > > > > > >>> >
> only throw away packets for that duration.
>
> > > > > >>> > >
>
> > > > > >>> > > The above discussion was
trying to solve the problem
> > > > >
> >>> > > where all nodes do not know about protection
events;
> > > > > > >>>
> > only those adjacent to the fault do. If
> all nodes do
> > > > >
> >>> > > know about protection events, the solution
> you mention
> >
> > > > >>> > > should work, but it does need to
be
> documented in the
> > > > > > >>> > > spec.
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > [Off
topic discussion]
> > > > > >
>>> > > To me, it seemed like the main argument for
> > > doing wrapping
>
> > > > > >>> > > is that only nodes adjacent
to the fault need
> > > to know
about
> > > > > > >>>
> > it and react to it. If all nodes do need
> to know about
> > > > >
> >>> > > a protection event, then it it probably
> more efficient
>
> > > > > >>> > > for them to use
steering.
> > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > > >>>
> > -Anoop
> > > > > >
>>> > >
> > > > > >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>> > > From: Mike
Takefman
> > > > > > >>>
> > To: Anoop Ghanwani
> > > >
> > >>> > > Cc: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
>>> > > Sent: 6/24/02 12:07 AM
>
> > > > > >>> > > Subject: Re: [RPRWG] control
TTL (the 255-station
> > > > > and
2000-km issue)
> > > > > >
>>> > >
> > > > > >
>>> > > Anoop,
> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > > >
> > >>> > > wrapping nodes always communicate with
every other
> > > > > >
>>> > > node anyway. This is necessary for protection
> > > > > > >>> > >
heirarchy to work. Also, given the broadcast
>
> > > > > >>> > > nature of messages to make
steering work in under
> > > > > >
>>> > > 50 ms, I have no concern over all nodes
knowing
> > > > > > >>>
> > that all protection events are done and the ringlets
> > > > > > >>> > > are
healed.
> > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > > >>>
> > If one waits for the ringlets to be healed
> > > > > > >>> > > and then killing
the packet life is fine. Or
> > > > >
> >>> > > maybe I did not understand your comment.
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > >
mike
> > > > > > >>> >
>
> > > > > > >>> >
> Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> > > >
> > >>> > > > > > The problem with (3), which
you seem
> to advocate,
> > > > > > >>> > > > > >
is the time gap between the wrap
> action and
the
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > the distribution/settling of the wrap state
> > > > > information
> > > > > > >>> > > > > >
in other stations. During this time
> > >
difference, any
> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > and all TTL-strip based frames will
> be discarded.
> >
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > > A good
point david, in response please consider
> >
> > > the following
> > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> >
> > > > >>> > > > > Never decrement when on
the wrong ring.
> > > Once the wrap
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> state is left, kill the packet if the ring id
> > > > > > >>> > > > > is
wrong. THus going into wrap does not
> cause
the
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > packets to be prematurely lost. When
> leaving wrap
> > > > >
> >>> > > > > the packets will be killed once
everyone knows
> > > > > >
>>> > > > > the wrap is over.
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > >
Mike,
> > > > > > >>>
> > >
> > > > > >
>>> > > > Does everyone on the ring know when a
> wrap has occured
>
> > > > > >>> > > > and when it
heals? I thought wrapping was a
> > >
local issue
> > > > > >
>>> > > > and only nodes adjacent to the fault know
> about it.
> >
> > > > >>> > > > In that case, if the node at
which wrapping occurs
> > > > > >
>>> > > > detects a heal, and for some reason
doesn't
> > > pull a wrap
> > > > > > >>> > > > packet off,
it will continue to circulate forever.
> >
> > > > >>> > > > The node can't be dropping
wrapped packets forever
> > > > >
> >>> > > > because the wrap could occur somewhere else
at
> > > > > > >>> >
> > which time it would be a legal packet for
> > > pass-through.
> > >
> > > >>> > > >
> >
> > > > >>> > > > -Anoop
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > --
> > > > > > >>> > >
Michael
Takefman
tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
>>> > > Manager of
Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > > > > > >>> > > Chair
IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > > > > >
>>> > > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > > > >>> > > voice:
613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > --
> > > > > > >>> > Michael
Takefman
tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
>>> > Manager of
Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > > > > > >>> > Chair IEEE
802.17 Stds WG
> > > > > >
>>> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > > > >>> > voice:
613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>--
>
> > > > > >>Michael
Takefman
tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
>>Manager of Engineering, Cisco
Systems
> > > > > > >>Chair
IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > > > > >
>>2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > > > >>voice:
613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> > > > >
> >
> > > --
> > > > > Michael
Takefman
tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Manager of
Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > > > > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > > > > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa,
Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > > voice:
613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> > > > >
> >
>
>