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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Tue, 08 October 2013 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 167FF11E812D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 pxIWjSVZGXgi for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D8311E811A for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail116-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.249) by CH1EHSOBE016.bigfish.com (10.43.70.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:19 +0000
Received: from mail116-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail116-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1324201BB; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz9371I542Iec9I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz8275ch1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h186068h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail116-ch1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(13464003)(189002)(51704005)(37854004)(377454003)(19580395003)(74706001)(74316001)(74366001)(63696002)(80022001)(79102001)(83322001)(19580405001)(65816001)(81342001)(69226001)(77982001)(81542001)(59766001)(50986001)(66066001)(47736001)(47976001)(49866001)(83072001)(85306002)(56776001)(51856001)(53806001)(76482001)(4396001)(54316002)(46102001)(81686001)(76796001)(56816003)(76786001)(77096001)(76576001)(74876001)(33646001)(47446002)(74502001)(80976001)(31966008)(54356001)(81816001)(74662001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB142; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.36; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail116-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail116-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1381271177604273_3289; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS011.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.244]) by mail116-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5D02A00C2; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CH1EHSMHS011.bigfish.com (10.43.70.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:17 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:16 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.9; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:14 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.177]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.115]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.005; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:14 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: AQHOw/RvMrBCr56VuU2xebXAhUabxpnrFPqAgABNoZA=
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:26:13 +0000
Message-ID: <a216a142647f4616aba1bffd7b5b0d6f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA77C4B@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654931@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654931@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.36]
x-forefront-prvs: 0993689CD1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
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 22:27:28 -0000

Zafar,

So, is your assertion that RFC5553 is broken?

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:47 AM
> To: Fatai Zhang; John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
> 
> Fatai and all-
> 
> In a stateless PCE, Path Keys are transient and they expire. For this solution
> to work you need a PCE that can keep Paths associated with a Path Key
> around (a stateful PCE where states are path computed by the PCE).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards Š Zafar
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
> Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:01 AM
> To: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org"
> <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
> 
> >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-p
> >ath
> >key-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
> >_te xt=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/?
> >inc
> >lude_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
> >_______________________________________________
> >CCAMP mailing list
> >CCAMP@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
>