IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 20:08 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 C5F3121E80E8 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:05 -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 FD-Eg7Zmn3Wm for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2701921E80A1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6140; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375214880; x=1376424480; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=a0gLx0G7HSLpBJOnEVmcqcCDrZFbqJZzAfh4/HF+7Tk=; b=jR7ExzCD3bj9VZTxXbJamJovr9RU85UNxjXExxHxVz7UUJDpHXYQFGUo gkeNwQuP1CuCGwdYnHkUXB9By3FNWYhs1oYm0maAgbhosZS4Tiq1yAkND 0B93DNfCJZryVU+u986lnaPe7ZnaKdFNzniLHYDpkeEULxQmgW0WVe3SG 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAAIc+FGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVC+GYEfFnSCJAEBAQQtXgEIDgMDAQILHTkUCQgBAQQBEggRh3e4XY9NIBiDGHEDqSuDFIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,780,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241485041"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2013 20:07:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UK7xDT026367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:07:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.213]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:07:59 -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: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAG5uQwAAdbOAA=
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:07:58 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F39E6@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD183B@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: [10.82.239.252]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F39E6xmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:08:06 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email