Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <> Wed, 31 July 2013 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C7421F9DAB for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sj97PE9QavPR for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AE221F93C4 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=19062; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375261295; x=1376470895; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=CL4JOrs7ziveuOlqMLpCHNZCHU32oHxmNF2gNsIiBUI=; b=L6GEfksGVPKv8PLkfNztvNZqq1dZYgZuhemcThbgSiJ4e3kB5qU9k74O hJ/N0t+JRBJLoAzVoUfZeGxlQvP+iWp1lBU2p+ZQ5AKiAPJo2lmBi6jQK tHRRs1mDzJALOVUNPFCMoRDpJ0nqUa3ySyPQTS4/oO3d7efw/JbhiNgG0 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFALXQ+FGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVC+HIEXFnSCJAEBAQQtXgEIDgMDAQEBCx05FAkIAgQBEggRh3e4W49NIBcBgxhxA6krgxSCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,785,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241659681"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 08:59:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6V8xdZk016022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:59:39 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:59:38 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
To: Khuzema Pithewan <>, "CCAMP (" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:59:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F3F71xmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:09:57 -0000

Hi Khuzema:

Please see in-line.


Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:45 AM
To: zali <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Hi Zafar,

The point I am making here is.. the 2 approaches.. Admin Status and LSP_Attributes, are exactly same in terms of object re-use and both of them defines new bits for enhanced functionality. The LSP_Attribute approach has additional overhead of managing a separate control LSP, which is not desirable.

The inquire/ potential reopt LSP is likely not to follow path of the currently active LSP. Hence this cannot be implemented by just adding some Admin Status bit on the current LSP. One need to signal a separate LSP.


From: Zafar Ali (zali) []
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:17 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (<>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Hi Khuzema:

For signaling inquiry LSP with resource locking, we are using the Pre-Planned LSP flag as-is as defined in RFC6001. Given this, we are defining a new flag when inquiry LSP needs to be signal without resource locking.


Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:45 PM
To: zali <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Well.. not really.

You are defining new bits for LSP_ATTRIBUTES for resource locking… aren’t you?

Instead of doing that, you can define bits in ADMIN_STATUS and save new LSP life cycle management, which would be quite cumbersome.


From: Zafar Ali (zali) []
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (<>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00


The point is to reuse what already exists. The Pre-Planned LSP flag in the Attribute Flags TLV of LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is already defined in [RFC5420] and is a glove fit.


Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Another point I spoke about in the meeting ..

Why can’t we extend Admin Status object to signal resource locking, checking for re-optimization. Since this operation is typically done in maintenance window by Admin, it may make sense to use Admin Status Object. Moreover, we have lots of bits available/undefined in Admin Status object.

This will save network element to manage life of additional LSP and control plane failure related issues attached to the additional LSP.