Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt

Gregory Mirsky <> Tue, 25 February 2014 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DAE1A0367; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYPWG4IdKUZW; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4841A0353; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:05:11 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-ed-530bde367b56
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A6.14.11484.63EDB035; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:05:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:05:08 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <>, Lizhong Jin <>, Frederic Jounay <>, "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <>, "Mike Taillon (mtaillon)" <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>, Manav Bhatia <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPIOaJqiIMOAEGrkS5EKB7Vxg2IpqjnT0AgADCvJCAINagAP//8aFggAAehID//+/34A==
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:05:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrK7ZPe5gg2Nn1SyezLnBYnF8+gQW ixWnnzFbzLl3j9Xi1tKVrBZblxxnspja1MFm8enETyaL1zu+sjtwerQ+28vqMeX3RlaPnbPu snssWfKTyePGVsUA1igum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujG+3TzAVTDeuWP/oL1sD4xKtLkZODgkBE4nj 59ezQdhiEhfugdhcHEICRxglOp+uY4FwljNKbO97xAxSxSZgJPFiYw87SEJE4DqTxL4zu5lA EswCUhJ3b3UxgtjCAokS/TfOsoLYIgJJEgt//2eHsMMkPs/5BjSVg4NFQFVi40ewmbwCvhL/ J0wGKxcSKJJY8fUM2EWcAvoSz65vAIszAl33/dQaqFXiEreezGeCuFpAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/ WCFsRYl9/dPZIep1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4GmqvoMTJmU9YJjCKzUIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKK kaO0OLUsN93IcBMjMBKPSbA57mBc8MnyEKM0B4uSOO+Xt85BQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanF hxiZODilGhjnrsmaZyf2eMen0MNd6spNbUzXHmRPXt5l6WyxvqY7XStt688e848BgVuPNbj5 XN+5vDFfSmXv4YkBMqqvywxX2ndZ/0tzmuocfnF6o1JrZmdXmlv6yUCP+xw+sfL+tYta40wj f7krfN54VJE3Rv8eb8vPCX9y9PmvrGm4+m3HFCOWrq7E+0osxRmJhlrMRcWJAGqpAr6SAgAA
Cc: CCAMP <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:05:14 -0000

Hi Rakesh,
for the NNHOP bypass you'll not have truly local protection. One would either have to monitor segment between Upstream and Downstream PLRs or use some sort of PSC between the two. In any of these cases, Segment protection based on RFC 6378 offers the solution. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [] 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia;
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt

Hi Greg,

Two issues being addressed in this draft apply equally to the link protection case when using [RFC4090]:

1. bypass assignment co-ordination and
2. sending Resv (from upstream PLR) over reverse bypass to avoid state timeout.

For NNHOP bypass, this just corrects the asymmetry of co-routed LSP forward and reverse paths.

FYI, this draft was originally published to MPLS WG but then moved to CCAMP WG. Not sure which is the right WG for this work.

BTW, [RFC4873] does not state that one can not use [RFC4090] with GMPLS signalling. Pleas see [RFC4873] Section 2:
When [RFC4090] isn't being used, the association between segment recovery LSPs with other LSPs is indicated using the ASSOCIATION  object defined in [RFC4872]. "

This draft simply addresses the gaps when using [RFC4090] for GMPLS packet LSPs.


On 2014-02-24 6:16 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <>

>Hi Rakesh,
>I understand motivation of authors. Applicability of RFC 4090 to 
>bi-directional co-routed LSP was discussed as part of MPLS-TP 
>survivability framework (RFC 6372). I think that we've agreed that 
>applicability of RFC 4090 is limited to link protection and segment 
>protection should be recommended as providing more generic coverage. 
>Have authors considered bringing discussion and presenting the proposal 
>to MPLS WG?
>Hope you wouldn't mind me adding MPLS WG to the discussion.
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) []
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:58 PM
>To: Gregory Mirsky; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); 
>Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia
>Subject: Re: New Version Notification for 
>Hi Greg,
>Thank you for your comments.
>As you know, proposed draft addresses the two issues (state timeout and 
>bypass assignment) where FRR [RFC4090] is used for GMPLS packet tunnels.
>Motivations for using FRR here is that it is widely deployed in the 
>packet MPLS-TE networks today and can leverage all existing FRR 
>detection and restoration mechanisms and not have to deploy new 
>protocol such as PSC [RFC6378] for protection switchover co-ordination.
>On 2014-02-03 9:40 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <>
>>Hi Rakesh, et. al,
>>since bi-directional co-routed LSP is MPLS-TP construct I believe that 
>>if local node protection is indeed required it should not use RFC 4090 
>>signaling but use ASSOCIATION object as described in Section 2.3 RFC
>>6689 and RFC 6378 MPLS-TP Linear Protection instead.
>>	Regards,
>>		Greg
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi
>>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 5:52 AM
>>To: Lizhong Jin; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); 
>>Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia; Zafar Ali 
>>(zali); Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Tarek Saad (tsaad); Frederic JOUNAY; 
>>Manav Bhatia
>>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for 
>>Hi WG,
>>New revision of the published draft contains following updates:
>>- Remove unidirectional bypass LSP (as per previous comments)
>>- Fix syntax of the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT object.
>>- Misc editorial cleanup.
>>Please provide your review comments.
>>On 2014-02-03 8:44 AM, ""
>><> wrote:
>>>A new version of I-D,
>>>has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the 
>>>IETF repository.
>>>Name:		draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute
>>>Revision:	03
>>>Title:		Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of
>>>Bidirectional Co-routed Traffic Engineering LSPs
>>>Document date:	2014-02-03
>>>Group:		Individual Submission
>>>Pages:		12
>>>   This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
>>>   Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to support Fast Reroute
>>>   (FRR) of bidirectional co-routed Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. These
>>>   extensions enable the re-direction of bidirectional traffic and
>>>   signaling onto bypass tunnels that ensure co-routedness of data and
>>>   signaling paths in the forward and reverse directions after FRR. In
>>>   addition, the RSVP-TE signaling extensions allow the coordination of
>>>   bypass tunnel assignment protecting a common facility in both forward
>>>   and reverse directions prior to or post failure occurrence.
>>>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>>The IETF Secretariat
>>CCAMP mailing list