Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 04 August 2014 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C3C1A0387 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ydMduJjCMIto for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 05A871A037F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20059 invoked by uid 0); 4 Aug 2014 22:29:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2014 22:29:07 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id asUv1o0092SSUrH01sUy81; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:29:06 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=KAMjFvWR21EA:10 a=kC4BAXwS1W4A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=1xo1AF_BCjwU35BcpwsA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10
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=6/5t5H8CSV5S1fE79bGZXx/+BIztNBiEVBVYrOvOi6w=; b=gzEplukFf1EDSt+ixJWNkbKJNh/Bgob5KKVXLb8Vdxpw55+adyeo8URRkmZLSHUa2qr45EqBJM4P/nAlImFvOMF6ngW0oDydM6cXR3Hb5PmtdzP9vTbj6wruiLuNR+6S;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:41701 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XEQkS-0002qB-C0; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:28:56 -0600
Message-ID: <53E0094F.60200@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:29:35 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
References: <53DD040A.6000809@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C08671@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <53DFF088.70506@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C086A9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C086A9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AmS3IW3mgkaYtXonxk0BuKWLcfI
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:29:14 -0000

Young,
    Thanks for the quick response.  I "get" how WA method works, but am
less clear how Resource Block Information (e.g., Regeneration control
and  Attribute Conversion control) works per node. For example, how
would control of wavelength conversion at a particular node work?

Perhaps just running through this one simple case will help...

Again, as a reminder, the desire is to document existing intent rather
than redefining the solution.

Much thanks,
Lou

On 8/4/2014 5:08 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Since the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is meant to allow each transit node to inspect the TLV's under it, each transit node will inspect RBI or WA method and apply if it has relevance for the node; otherwise just pass to the next hop. (Section 5 of RFC 5420 has this clause: "This means that this object SHOULD only be
> used for attributes that require support at some transit LSRs and so require examination at all transit LSRs.")
>
> This may not be optimal but a way to get around technical changes as you pointed out not to do so at this moment. 
>
> If we want this to be optimal and require technical changes to the draft, we can go with an alternative, utilizing [RSVP-RO] draft with ERO subobject/HOP Attributes to encode RBI or WA method as its TLVs. 
>
> Whichever the WG wants, we can go either way. 
>
> Thanks,
> Young
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:44 PM
> To: Leeyoung; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
>
> Young,
>    
> On 8/4/2014 4:29 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Lou, here's my comment on your comment. In a nutshell replacing [RSVP-RO] with [RFC5420] will solve the confusion. 
>>
>> Please see in-line for details.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Young
> So you are saying that Resource Block Information and Wavelength Assignment Method are encoded end-to-end and *never* have hop/node/interface specific meaning (as they are each encoded as an Attribute TLV in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object), is this correct?
>
> ARE YOU SURE?  
>
> How do you envision the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object conveying per-hop information? (As discussed in section 3.2 and the first paragraph on section 4.2.)
>
> Lou
> ....
>
>
>