IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <kpithewan@infinera.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07C81A011F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bhgdPQ4TGEP0 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoingmail2.infinera.com (outgoingmail2.infinera.com [204.128.141.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FDF1A019B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com (10.100.103.228) by sv-ex13-prd2.infinera.com (10.100.103.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:10 -0700
Received: from SV-EX13-PRD1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) by sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.11]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:55:10 -0700
From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04
Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCAAAIaqXD///yeAIAAEWmA
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:55:09 +0000
Message-ID: <02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com>
References: <206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7db@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> <CFF4E2BE.C002A%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFF4E2BE.C002A%zali@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.93]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_02bbe8d934824f1da7d8e5efe33589f0svex13prd1infineracom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4yJAfvmE2xnO1cpZwO-vujvgtTQ
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 23 Jul 2014 07:55:17 -0000

Sure. Thanks!

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:51 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Hi Khuzema:

Yes, exclusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankback, as suggested by you.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 AM
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-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Thanks.

The issue is if XROs are not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only. So XROs are kind of mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way.

Khuzema

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Khuzema:

We can add a Recommendation section to the draft.

Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Authors :

It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify which options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /critique of options would help.

For example :

Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

Thanks
Khuzema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email