Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,
Documents you refer to (e.g. RFC 3473):

a)      is not just about WDM layer

b)      does not assume label symmetricity

c)      does not consider complications introduced by overlay network
And the point of the document we are working on exactly is to complement RFC3473 with simple notion and simple mechanism.

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Igor Bryskin; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Igor-

And we also had this discussion but you did not find a use case for asymmetrical label.

----------- begin forwarded message -----

-----Original Message-----
From: Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:20 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复:  答复: Comments about
draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label-00

For the transport/GMPLS networks, I would repeat the bidirectional LSPs
are always symmetric in practice, so there are no cases for some nodes to
assign asymmetric labels.


I agree. Just want to add as CCAMP should NOT be assuming some research work.

Thanks

Regards...Zafar

----------- end of forwarded message -----

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:04 AM
To: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Zafar,
As of today the label set object cannot govern label selection for the upstream label. You need either:

a)     Notion of label-symmetrical bidirectional LSPs or

b)     Notion of upstream label set
None of this defined in the documents you refer to.

Igor

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:00 AM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Hi Pavan:

The acceptable label set is picked from the label set (e.g., one of the labels from the label set). So it's not a compromised solution. It works and is deployed.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:16 AM
To: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Giovanni, Hi!

Can you please elaborate on why you think the LABEL_SET having good labels help in this context/argument? If the upstream-node doesn't guess right (when picking the upstream-label), you'll get a PATH-ERR back with the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET. And this would happen for every setup request. Wouldn't you call this a compromised solution?

Regards,
-Pavan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Vishnu,

On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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