IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
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 8A5171A0135 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 FpNSUR9r6HWq for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0577C1A0127 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10659; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406101857; x=1407311457; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=F7xTdffrPcoouZFIXIvr4t1QnPli5cNGIHhfrzN7cho=; b=HDA+GAeOBWKk5BmAvMxGZk1b2opPilbtuAp+nvJD6aTFQWCcJ71VfcOA 8F6ZiOT8+DWKgg2h+qKMavr+DmxfRCL7u3d8WeDnKSESbvujwdgvrO2jg Ir1MmPu+jlnxUAxxVlz+aMbVxhsoHwzCDPWPYzpMkPFmuuCUfdmgGEivc 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAHxoz1OtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkdHUlcEzxcBgQsWdoQDAQEBBC1eAQgOAwMBAQEoORQJCAEBBAESiEK+fhePOhcBhEYFjkSMYpQ0g0ZsgUU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,715,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="341959915"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 07:50:56 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6N7ouY7021562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:50:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:50:55 -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-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04
Thread-Index: Ac+lI2v9bVjKNUkXRe+uDGKIKuzl5ABKfjCAAAIaqXD///yeAA==
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:50:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CFF4E2BE.C002A%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <206d6ba801b34ca0806d8a4b3934a7db@sv-ex13-prd1.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: [10.86.241.105]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFF4E2BEC002Azaliciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/B2jHJO697Lg4bSZfmkKeaHkOsrg
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:51:01 -0000

Hi Khuzema:

Yes, exclusion is signaled using XRO. We can add some text on crankback, as suggested by you.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 AM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Thanks.

The issue is if XROs are not used in option#1, it relies on crankbacks only. So XROs are kind of mandatory for option#1 to work in reasonable way.

Khuzema

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:03 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Khuzema:

We can add a Recommendation section to the draft.

Option 1 also uses XRO. I did not get your comment.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:39 PM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04

Authors :

It will be useful to have a recommendation section in draft to clarify which options can be used in what scenario. Some discussion on comparison /critique of options would help.

For example :

Option#1 has scalability issue if XROs are not used resulting in crankbacks one after another. So if client layer cannot provide XROs, option#2/3 should be used.

Thanks
Khuzema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email