Re: [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Fri, 12 August 2011 11:38 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 2DB0B21F8661; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.915, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2dAgCxoBkvZO; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBF521F86AF; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 131321461793122; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:27:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 22013.2460250643; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:38:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p7CBcHRF038215; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:38:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4E43E197.5000804@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: C8E65894:5BEFEDBD-482578EA:003519F1; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFC8E65894.5BEFEDBD-ON482578EA.003519F1-482578EA.003FE734@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:38:19 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-08-12 19:38:20, Serialize complete at 2011-08-12 19:38:20
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003FE72D482578EA_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p7CBcHRF038215
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org, ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
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, 12 Aug 2011 11:38:10 -0000
Hi Lou Thanks for so many valuable comments Please see in line with <Fei> B.R. Fei Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org 2011-08-11 22:05 收件人 draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org 抄送 CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org> 主题 [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp Authors, Good progress on the draft so far. In looking at the previous mail, I noticed a few things in the draft that I think could improve the clarity of the draft. Note that a bunch of these comments are style in nature, not technical. Also comments are made as a WG contributor, not chair. Some general comments: - There is no/little conformance language related to the Single Sided Provisioning. This is a huge hole in the draft. <Fei> Do you mean to add them in section 5? - As mentioned in my previous mail, backwards compatibility needs to be address <Fei> Will be added in section 5 - How are you thinking about providing the ERO (and perhaps RRO?) for the reverse LSP when using Single Sided Provisioning? (Keep in mind we already have EROs/RROs and SEROs/SRROs, it would be good to figure out if these can be leveraged.) <Fei> Actually I think ERO wil be useful. Consider that one PCE is used to calcualate the TE-LSPs, it will give both directional's informations to the ingress LSR. The reverse LSP's path will be carried in the forward LSP's PATH message. For the RRO function, if the egress LSP wants to get the information of the forward LSP, it just needs to check the forward LSP's PATH message. I do not see any reason to carry it, can you clarify on this point? - How does 4872/3 style recovery work for the reverse LSP? <Fei> I have not thought about this before, this will be a bit more complicated, but your suggestion to define a new top level object will be helpful. - You introduce the new, and somewhat confusing, term: "Two Reverse Unidirectional LSPs". TP already has a term for this, i.e., "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". I think the document should just use this established term. <Fei> Will correct For the following I'm using line numbers found via http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.txt Line 1: The document is in ccamp not mpls. <Fei> Sorry for the error, will correct Line 8: "Establish Associated Bidirectional LSP". Presumably, this also will cover more than just establishment, so perhaps replace "to Establish" with "For" and "LSP" with "LSPs". <Fei> Sure Lines 132/134: The section is titled association .. of LSPs, but the first topic is provision models and it certainly covers more than association. Perhaps the title should be something more general, even "Associated Bidirectional LSPs", or "Overview". <Fei> Ok Section 3. As this section is a narrative, the very few instances of RFC2119 language seems out of place, i.e., belongs in section 4 and 5 and should be moved or removed. <Fei> will correct Section 3.2.2. I think this is really overly complex and likely to lead to the same issues and confusion we've seen in e2e recovery. Is there any reason not to keep it simple and say something along the lines of "the values used in the ASSOCIATION object are outside the scope of this document. For example they may be communicated via the management plane. No matter how the values are communicate, identification of the LSPs as being Associated Bidirectional LSPs occurs based on the identical contents in the LSPs' ASSOCIATION objects" <Fei> No specially reason, will revise it. Section 3.3: doesn't cover recovery of LSP2. <Fei> The recovery of LSPs follows the same way as LSP1. The description will be added Line 437: Suggest renaming to "Association of LSPs". <Fei> OK. Section 4: I think this is where any discussion of Association object modifications, procedures, and conformance language should be consolidated. Lines 443-529: In general, one document should not repeat the format from another for informational purposes, so most of these lines should be dropped. All you need is a statement to the affect that the Extended ASSOCIATION object is defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] MUST be used. <Fei> OK Line 496: Should use the standard term "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". <Fei> OK Lines 498-500: This sentence relates to nodes that do *not* implement this draft, as such is way outside the scope of the document and must be removed. <Fei> OK Lines 507-509, 523-529: In general I think it is a mistake to proscribe use of LSP or tunnel IDs as association IDs. Using the assoc-ext rules, it isn't an interoperability concern, and such usage leads to the confusion/issues covered in the assoc-info draft. I think the 4872 definition is sufficient for Association ID and assoc-ext is sufficient for Extended Association ID. <Fei> The e2e recovery association [RFC4872] was based on the LSP ID, for the Work and protection LSPs are in the same tunnel; RFC4873 did not give this restriction, just based on the unique value. I think you mean RFC4873 definition is sufficient? Yeah, this will take the interoperability concern. My initial idea is that TP-identifier(including global ID_node ID_tunnel ID_LSP ID) gives the unique value that match the association> Since global ID and node ID has been defined in the Extended association object, Tunnel ID+ LSP ID will be gloabal unique, and it is just a kind of association ID. I agree with you that the unique value is not needed to be the LSP ID+ Tunnel ID, will relax the limitation. Section 5: Suggest renaming "Single Sided Provisioning" and including all the related modifications, procedures, and conformance language in this section. Topics to be covered include, in no particular order: - LSP Control (Establishment, teardown, modification including MBB. Don't forget about the attributes and admin status objects -- maybe there's a generic approach that can be followed, e.g., a REVERSE_LSP object that carries objects for use by the reverse LSP - Symmetric and Asymmetric BW (If not covered under a generic approach) Explicit control of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) - Record route of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) - Recovery (If not covered under a generic approach) - Compatibility - Updated RSVP Message Formats (as needed) <Fei>We will give a updated version to cover these content Lou _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp