Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Fri, 15 April 2011 06:04 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCB2E0750; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.943, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vGGSykgF0pzt; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD9BE073E; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 125201461793122; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 54394.3565597523; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:52:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p3F63vjU007050; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:03:57 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927AFAA19@szxeml508-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 0BD62F40:A9D6A5D8-48257873:001EDD09; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF0BD62F40.A9D6A5D8-ON48257873.001EDD09-48257873.002152B4@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:04:00 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-04-15 14:03:58, Serialize complete at 2011-04-15 14:03:58
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002152B148257873_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p3F63vjU007050
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-bounces@ietf.org" <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:04:11 -0000
Hi Jie In general,two unidirectional LSPs can be bound together based on the same global unique value under the same association type. Actually, TP' identifier is one kind of such global unique value, which is defined in the Extended Association object. In other words, the association rule under the scenarios of recovery is still based on the same association type and association value. So " the IDs in the extended ASSOCIATION object may have nothing to do with the two associated LSPs" has no effect on the binding. Of course, we can define a new object which carrys another kind of unique value which is irrelevant to the TP's identifier. That SHOULD works well, but I think the design rule is to reuse the existing object to do the same thing if it is possible. Is the interpretation reasonable? Thanks and best regards Fei Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com> 2011-04-15 10:07 收件人 "zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn" <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn> 抄送 "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-bounces@ietf.org" <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 主题 RE: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document Hi Fei, Thanks for your prompt reply. Although the suggested statement could solve the problem of confliction, it still looks a little strange that the IDs in the extended ASSOCIATION object may have nothing to do with the two associated LSPs. Regards, Jie From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:16 PM To: Jie Dong Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-bounces@ietf.org; Lou Berger Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document Hi Jie Thank you for the comments. :) According to the description in section 4 "The Association ID MUST be set to its own signaled LSP ID (default); if known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP." "The first 16-bits MUST be set to its own tunnel ID (default); if known, it May be set to the tunnel ID of the associated reverse tunnel." What about the revision like this: "if known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP or inherited from the corresponding recovery LSP." I will address all the comments in the next version. Best regards Fei :) Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org 2011-04-14 20:22 收件人 Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> 抄送 主题 Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document Hi authors, One quick comment here. In section 3.3 recovery considerations, it says " LSP3... can share the same TE tunnel with LSP1 or not. ... This can be done by inserting the Extended ASSOCIATION object in LSP3's Path message with the same value as in LSP1's Path message." This means LSP3 may use LSP1's IDs in the Extended ASSOCIATION object in its Path message, which may contain Tunnel_Num and LSP_ID different from its own and LSP2's. However, in section 4, the specification of Association ID and Extended Association ID field says: o Association ID: The Association ID MUST be set to its own signaled LSP ID (default); if known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP. o Extended Association ID: ... the first 16-bits MUST be set to its own tunnel ID (default); if known, it May be set to the tunnel ID of the associated reverse tunnel. Hence the two specifications conflict with each other. Regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Lou Berger > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:24 PM > To: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making > draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document > > All, > > This is to start a two week poll on making > draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working > group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support" > or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your technical > reservations with the document. > > The poll ends Friday April 15. > > Much thanks, > Lou (and Deborah) > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… venkatesan mahalingam
- [CCAMP] 答复: poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… wang.xuerong
- [CCAMP] 答复: poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… wang.qilei
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Mukund Mani
- [CCAMP] 答复: poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Bao.Yuanlin
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… he.wenjuan1
- Re: [CCAMP] poll onmaking draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… xuyunbin
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Daniel King
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… dai.xuehui
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Attila Takacs
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Jing Ruiquan
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Giovanni Martinelli
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Isacco Fontana
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Ramon Casellas
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Attila Takacs
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Requirement for singled ended provisionin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… So, Ning
- Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Requirement for singled ended provisi… Attila Takacs
- Re: [CCAMP] Requirement for singled ended provisi… zhang.fei3