IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-04

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
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 99CE011E8172 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A7dBRSxoXuoj for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F3D21F967C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6273; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375268271; x=1376477871; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=8zs+oO14UdQ7H9qM8T+CwkGicQIYc7VMq8vVGiYLIVw=; b=iKMVhu67oZ/skGwSNecRvMsqkibn/S73Vh/MR66LKoJminP/LRY12wh6 v1yZnGzZDMJFc90bkSZiEXvnwR8Rln+Z3j2Op+EKklt1Pe183x2tnhTse p2p6JvV6aqYVDKUCUrrKME6yygPNmnlgVdaQLT/WiqKgOJujWR3NmFf8N g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAFrs+FGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVC+HIEYFnSCJAEBAQQtXgEIDgMDAQILHTkUCQgBAQQBEgiICLhyj1YgGIMYcwOpLIMUgWokHA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,786,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241790818"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 10:57:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6VAvoe0012694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:57:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.213]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:57:50 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-04
Thread-Index: Ac6NMx+p2RAMz7T3QPeg+VDERTEEPAAsg+UA
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:57:49 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F41AC@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD05EC@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.212.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F41ACxmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-04
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:58:10 -0000

Hi Khuzema-

Please see in-line.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:43 AM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-04

Authors,

For LSP sub-objects, there needs to be validations that ensures that the 2 loose abstract nodes hops (or 1 loose abstract node followed by with 1 strict hop) before and after the LSP sub-object has to exactly match with that of LSP being referenced by the sub-object, otherwise, the section of the path from the reference LSP may not be valid for the LSP being setup.


Please note that the use case for the include route is to allow two LSPs to follow the same route. Hence, the loose hop expansion code and destination of the loose hop for LSP being signaled needs be along the route of the reference LSP. Having said that, best-effort flag allow for some diversion on the two paths (if ALL inclusion in not feasible).

Regards
Khuzema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email