Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Tue, 08 October 2013 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.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 9A79921E815D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 00:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 7wUf704m8rGf for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 00:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9956221E8155 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 00:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AYR89175; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:01:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:01:13 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.39) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:01:41 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.86]) by SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:01:33 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: Ac6/mpvpLKMUWgFOTvGxqewIiE5jbQEWRmkQ
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:01:33 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA77C4B@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <a7a636bf5b6942a8b74ebf2c71a3212f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7a636bf5b6942a8b74ebf2c71a3212f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:01:51 -0000

Hi John,

Totally agree with you, I already found these two drafts are much *useless*. 

This is why we made a new draft (very simple and useful) and put our feet on the ground. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-00.txt




Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:27 AM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

HI,

I was reading:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity/?include_text=1, and I happened to notice the following paragraph:

"The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of the signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the signaled LSP
 requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document. "

Doesn't this disclaimer effectively render this draft useless?  The draft also does not define how the node that initially signaled the LSP finds the 'node calculating
or expanding the route'  nor how it delivers the signaled LSP request to that node.

As an aside, the draft:  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route/?include_text=1 would be subject to the same criticism
except that the above quoted paragraph is replaced with:

"The above-mentioned use cases require relevant path inclusion requirements to be communicated to the route expanding nodes.  This document addresses
 these requirements and defines procedures to address them." 

Even though this is helpful, the draft doesn't actually define these procedures.

Yours Irrespectively,

John


_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp