Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label

The use of / debate on acceptable label set goes all the way back to its
introduction.  It always came down to a trade off of what mechanism
would be sufficient for the normal ("G") cases and to what level we'd
optimize for special cases.  I think the draft implicitly revisits one
particular trade off decision and argues that what was once a special
case is now a common case -- that should be optimized.

I really think this is the first point to reach any agreement on.

I personally think that the use of a special or reserved upstream label
is a fine way, with established precedent, to indicate such special
processing. (That is, if we were to decided that such is warranted in
this case.)

Lou

On 02/28/2014 09:36 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> yes clear,  I was just bringing back on the table discussion we got on
> the same problem. The second option in better (although contention
> window is reduced but not avoided) however we had no numbers to justify
>  that such optimization or … at least not so strong  reasons to update a
> mechanism that was proven to work.
> 
> Cheers
> G
> 
> 
> On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:10, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net
> <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>> wrote:
> 
>> Giovanni,
>>  
>> Use of acceptable doubles the signaling overhead and opens up a
>> contention window:
>>  
>> 1)      Path
>> 2)      Path_err w/ acceptable label
>> 3)      Contention window
>> 4)      Path w/ acceptable label
>> 5)      Resv
>>  
>> Versus:
>>  
>> 1)      Path w/ downstream assigned label request
>> 2)      Resv w/ downstream assigned label
>>  
>> Also, it’s generally considered a bad idea™ to include error messages
>> in the normal operation of a protocol
>>  
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>  
>> John
>>  
>> *From:* CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Giovanni
>> Martinelli (giomarti)
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 4:54 AM
>> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>> *Cc:* ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
>>  
>> Hi Vishnu,
>>  
>> On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com
>> <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 