Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 28 August 2012 15:44 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 3C9CD11E8106 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.167
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RGulpNf2MYrv for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy9.bluehost.com (oproxy9.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DD34411E8101 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6255 invoked by uid 0); 28 Aug 2012 15:44:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy9.bluehost.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2012 15:44:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=3gCs+BoH3KxLDyxnGgPXG+39Ma4lND4KeqJ+hxpfyfM=; b=FjA7EnDly/CMHs9J+WqHSYPr32UU5md3f9BMoGWqOp7zN3X75F9DqEOnDNIAR7xjM9mF+HAINN4DAHlLGIviEi+wi/k3ld/cruFgO90POH4BeSVPggN0L2NJE/Yy4Lnm;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:58096 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1T6NxZ-0002fP-MU; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:44:09 -0600
Message-ID: <503CE749.7050006@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:44:09 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
References: <OFAEB4A9D3.3FF720E7-ON48257A68.004FF8E0-48257A68.00510E07@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFAEB4A9D3.3FF720E7-ON48257A68.004FF8E0-48257A68.00510E07@zte.com.cn>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
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, 28 Aug 2012 15:44:14 -0000
Fei, On 8/28/2012 10:46 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Lou > > - in the case of double sided provisioning *only* > 1. Association Source is set to an address selected by the node that > originates the association. (which may be a management entity.) > > <fei> Do you mean the assocition source can be neither A1 nor Z9 here? > Yes. The only requirement is (global) uniqueness. > 3.2.8 MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers > > [RFC6370] defines the LSP associated identifiers based on the > signaling parameters of each unidirectional LSP. The combination > of each unidirectional LSP's parameters is used to identify the > Associated Bidirectional LSP. Using the mechanisms defined in > this document, any node that is along the path of both > unidirectional LSPs can identify which pair of unidirectional LSPs > support an Associated Bidirectional LSP as well as the signaling > parameters required by [RFC6370]. Note that the LSP end-points > will always be the path of both unidirectional LSPs. > > <Fei> RFC6370 requires A1-global_ID and Z9-global_ID, how to push them > into the Extended ASSOCIATION object without new Association type? > Solving this issue, i.e., how to signal Global_ID of an LSP, is currently not within the scope of this document. Given it's such a small addition, I as a WG contributor, see no reason not to broaden the scope of this draft (assuming the WG agrees) to include such support. Although, I think the title and intro of the document will need to be updated to reflect this change. I'm also fine with keeping out of scope, and solving it elsewhere. Lou > Hope your clarification > > Thanks > > Fei > > > *Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>* > > 2012-08-28 20:46 > > > 收件人 > zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn > 抄送 > "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" > <rgandhi@cisco.com> > 主题 > Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in > draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt > > > > > > > > > Fei, > > I don't think the text addresses the issue of selection of association > object contents in the case of double sided provisioning. How about: > - in the case of double sided provisioning *only* > 1. Association Source is set to an address selected by the node that > originates the association. (which may be a management entity.) > 2. Association ID is a value assigned but the node that originates > the association. > 3. Global Association Source, when used, is set to the Global_ID of > the node that originates the association. > 4. Extended Association ID, when used, is selected by the node that > originates the association. > - If either (3) or (4) are used, an Extended ASSOCIATION object > [assoc-ext] is used. Otherwise a ASSOCIATION object [rfc4872] > is used > > - while we're at it, in the case of single sided provisioning *only* > (note only #1 differs) > 1. Association Source is set to an address assigned to the node that > originates the LSP. > 2. Association ID is a value assigned but the node that originates > the association. > 3. Global Association Source, when used, is set to the Global_ID of > the node that originates the association. > 4. Extended Association ID, when used, is selected by the node that > originates the association. > - If either (3) or (4) are used, an Extended ASSOCIATION object > [assoc-ext] is used. Otherwise a ASSOCIATION object [rfc4872] > is used > > I think the above addresses my point as it can be used to ensure unique > LSP association in all cases. BTW it also aligns very nicely with the > existing definition of the association objects. > > To address what I suspect is your concern, 3.2.8 can then become > something like (feel free to revise): > > 3.2.8 MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers > > [RFC6370] defines the LSP associated identifiers based on the > signaling parameters of each unidirectional LSP. The combination > of each unidirectional LSP's parameters is used to identify the > Associated Bidirectional LSP. Using the mechanisms defined in > this document, any node that is along the path of both > unidirectional LSPs can identify which pair of unidirectional LSPs > support an Associated Bidirectional LSP as well as the signaling > parameters required by [RFC6370]. Note that the LSP end-points > will always be the path of both unidirectional LSPs. > > Lou > > On 8/27/2012 10:20 PM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: >> >> Thank you lou >> >> How about changing the descriptions in paragraph 3.2.8 >> >> In some scenarios, a node that is the association source MAY need to >> learn about the Global_ID [RFC6370] of the peer node, which can be >> done by inserting the ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "LSP >> identifiers" in the outgoing Path message and being carried back in >> the Resv message, as defined in [I-D, draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp- >> rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num]. >> >> into >> >> In some scenarios, a node that is the association source MAY need to >> learn about the Global_ID [RFC6370] of the peer node. Although the >> scope of the draft [I-D, >> draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num] >> is limited to the co-routed bidirectional LSP, the defined procedures >> can >> be reused here also. The ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "LSP >> Identifiers" is inserted in the outgoing Path message at the association >> source and carried back in the corresponding Resv message. All the >> fields >> of the ASSOCIATION object except the Association Type in the Path >> message >> can be ignored by the receiver and the Global_ID of the peer node is >> pushed >> into the field of the Global Association Source in the Resv message. >> >> Best regards >> >> Fei >> >> >> *Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>* >> >> 2012-08-28 02:30 >> >> >> 收件人 >> zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn >> 抄送 >> "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "Rakesh Gandhi > (rgandhi)" >> <rgandhi@cisco.com> >> 主题 >> Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in >> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Fei, >> The problem only exists in the double sided provisioing >> case, so no >> need to complicate the single sided provisioning case. >> >> Lou >> >> >> On 8/26/2012 9:03 PM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: >>> The administrative >>> approach can integrate both models, will be a good idea. >> >> > >
- [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)