Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,

Actually, it was *you* that used the P-word:

"For the other cases, please note that just because optical network is running GMPLS UNI for client interface does not mean that it is running RSVP-TE for the optical trail management. E.g., optical trail management can still using an already deployed proprietary mechanisms or an NMS based scheme."

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar"


Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:09 AM
To: John E Drake; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Hi-

Yes, if you call explicit text in RFC3473 and draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06 as proprietary, please go ahead.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:05 AM
To: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Right, in your proprietary non-GMPLS product.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 7:00 AM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Hi Pavan:

The acceptable label set is picked from the label set (e.g., one of the labels from the label set). So it's not a compromised solution. It works and is deployed.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:16 AM
To: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Giovanni, Hi!

Can you please elaborate on why you think the LABEL_SET having good labels help in this context/argument? If the upstream-node doesn't guess right (when picking the upstream-label), you'll get a PATH-ERR back with the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET. And this would happen for every setup request. Wouldn't you call this a compromised solution?

Regards,
-Pavan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Vishnu,

On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



(2) The use of Label-Set/Acceptable Label-Set was meant to be used for exceptions. Using it always for every setup request is a compromised solution.


At the time we discussed the wson signaling (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06), the acceptable label set was considered good enough. Not sure it comes into play at every request since your label_set should have reasonably good labels.

Cheers
G