Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B35911E8139 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPbT0NFRgEfr for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F146C21E80AE for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=52976; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375229798; x=1376439398; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eqQxlesIFloZ0dwX3L5Qxr8MJWN8zIwqoTLqjt07fhU=; b=NrTsUX94/wQ8V8uzLf5wrQK+GkQfz2ffR3CvhjXgmEr8mHlzCZPRbTta 0KVtTTCtHvuynN0MY82G63JJyZpK10BlqzopelKLT9a6H7qYKEHBpBxAA GuTz7/Dd+bTlRoP5bcsW5xS3tt0t1EoPlQXELWYqU0WwV15z8RXhZQjUt w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAA5X+FGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVC+GIEfFnSCJAEBAQQtXgEIDgMDAQEBCxYBBjkUCQgBAQQBEggRh3e4bo9NIBcBgxhxA6krgxSCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,782,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241356209"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 00:16:37 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6V0Gbib030650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:16:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.213]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:16:37 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAG5uQwAAdbOAAAAUWKEAAHaZGA
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:16:36 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F3BDC@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD1A47@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.254.44]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F3BDCxmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:16:47 -0000

Hi Khuzema:

For signaling inquiry LSP with resource locking, we are using the Pre-Planned LSP flag as-is as defined in RFC6001. Given this, we are defining a new flag when inquiry LSP needs to be signal without resource locking.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:45 PM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Well.. not really.

You are defining new bits for LSP_ATTRIBUTES for resource locking… aren’t you?

Instead of doing that, you can define bits in ADMIN_STATUS and save new LSP life cycle management, which would be quite cumbersome.

Regards
Khuzema

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Khuzema:

The point is to reuse what already exists. The Pre-Planned LSP flag in the Attribute Flags TLV of LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is already defined in [RFC5420] and is a glove fit.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Another point I spoke about in the meeting ..

Why can’t we extend Admin Status object to signal resource locking, checking for re-optimization. Since this operation is typically done in maintenance window by Admin, it may make sense to use Admin Status Object. Moreover, we have lots of bits available/undefined in Admin Status object.

This will save network element to manage life of additional LSP and control plane failure related issues attached to the additional LSP.

Khuzema