Re: [CCAMP] OVRLY - signaling extensions

"Adrian Farrel" <> Mon, 10 March 2014 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7AF1A065B for <>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33MsYBFxEEKe for <>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0F51A04B0 for <>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2AKlqgn019982; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:47:52 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2AKlluA019947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:47:49 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "=?UTF-8?Q?'Pawe=C5=82_Brzozowski'?=" <>
References: <> <> <> <132301cf3bd5$cf0a8640$6d1f92c0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:47:46 -0000
Message-ID: <16a401cf3ca2$00152cf0$003f86d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_16A5_01CF3CA2.002113D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKw9VnQoF4V3YxjmEICO2ejjnzt1AEhTKUlAglrOgUB0bWIvQCZY09HmOqncNA=
Content-language: en-gb
Cc: 'CCAMP' <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OVRLY - signaling extensions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:48:06 -0000

Hello Paweł,
OK draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app-05 Figure 1
Firstly, establishing a pair of mutually diverse paths by first setting up one and then trying to set up the other is at best a poor substitute for selecting two good paths.
But, let's assume you want to do it for some reason.
EN1 sets up an LSP EN1-CN1-CN2-CN3-EN3
EN2 wants an LSP to EN4 that is completely disjoint from the first LSP.
Of course, there has to be some (magic) exchange of information from EN1 to EN2, but let's also assume that this happens (although I believe the reason for doing it is suspect!)
Suppose EN1 reports the path as {EN1, CN1, keyX, EN3}
Suppose also that EN2 has no access to a PCE.
EN2 does the computation it can which is to choose CN1 or CN4. It will not choose CN1 as that is in the path it is trying to avoid.
So EN2 signals {EN2, CN4, looseEN4} with  Not keyX
The Path message reaches CN4 and it looks for the next hop. It's loose so a path computation is needed.
CN4 sees the Not keyX and contacts the PCE for the core (or CN1) to expand the key.
The expansion shows {CN2, CN3}
So CN4 can now compute the path CN4-CN5-EN4 and signal as necessary.
[note: computations can be offloaded as desired]
Thus, yes, "avoid all links from EN2 to CN1". But I prefer "avoid all nodes CN1" because that is really what you are doing.
From: Paweł Brzozowski [] 
Sent: 10 March 2014 01:07
To:; 'Rajan Rao'; 'Fatai Zhang'; 'Dieter Beller'
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] OVRLY - signaling extensions
If EN1 can ask PCE – I agree, there is no need for crankback. Do you think that using pathkey as exclusion when there is no PCEP/TE visibility on the UNI boundary is worth considering? If so, could you walk me through such a case? Let’s take figure 1 from the document as an example.
1.       EN1 sets up a service A to EN3 via CN1. 
2.       EN2 wants to set up a service B to EN4, which is both node and link-disjoint from path of service A. It will use pathkey exclusion for this purpose.
If I understand “Path key is used in conjunction with the identity of the domain entry point, not in isolation” statement correctly, in order to avoid choosing wrong path for service B, EN2 should add TWO exclusions:
CN1 (or all links from EN2 to CN1) AND pathkey from service A. Is this correct?
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:26 PM
To: 'Rajan Rao'; 'Fatai Zhang'; 'Dieter Beller'
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OVRLY - signaling extensions
[co-author of draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app wakes from his slumber]
Of course crankback can be used, but I fail to see the topology where the path key doesn't do the job.
You referenced Figure 2 as an example. Unfortunately, you then used "CE" and "PE" in your question. Yet those terms are not used in the figure so we are left guessing what you mean.
It is possible that there is a slight confusion. Path key is used in conjunction with the identity of the domain entry point, not in isolation. Furthermore, it is used in conjunction with two points of reference to the PCE.
Let's look again at that figure
Let's suppose that EN1 (which is dual homed) asks the PCE for a path.
Let's also assume that core path hiding is being used.
Furthermore, the single PCE can see the ENs and the core network.
The PCRsp includes an ERO that is {EN1, CN4, pathkey, EN2}
This gives EN1 everything it needs to know.
When the signaling message reaches CN4, it must expand the pathkey.
Thus CN4 must contact the PCE for help and gets in return the path {CN4, CN5, CN2, CN3, EN2}
It may help if you re-read some RFCs: 5520, 5553, 5623, 6805.
If, at the end of this, you feel that the use of the path key is not clear, this is something you could work with us to add to draft-ietf-pce-questions
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Rajan Rao
Sent: 08 March 2014 08:12
To: Fatai Zhang; Dieter Beller
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OVRLY - signaling extensions
My understanding is that a “Cookie” is a network-Id/path-id.  It won’t give info CE is looking for.   What I understood from side discussions is that Crankback will be used to convey info back to CE!!
From: Fatai Zhang [] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 12:34 AM
To: Rajan Rao; Dieter Beller
Subject: 答复: OVRLY - signaling extensions
Hi Rajan,
I would say “by cookie” if I understand your question correctly.
发件人: Rajan Rao [] 
发送时间: 2014年3月7日 1:33
收件人: Fatai Zhang; Dieter Beller
主题: OVRLY - signaling extensions
Changed the title to Overlay topic.
Dieter,  Fatai 
One more question:
In case of PCE,  I assume CE is the one talking to PCE (fig-2 in uni-app draft).   
In cases where CE reachability is not known & PE1 is the one talking to PCE (say CE makes a request to PE1 first),  how do you communicate PE2 info back to CE?  
From: Fatai Zhang [] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 4:49 PM
To: Dieter Beller; Rajan Rao
Subject: 答复: [CCAMP] Raw notes available for review/comment
Hi Rajan,
I think your question is a general question, and should be out of scope of “LSP diversity” topic, J
However, there are lots of approaches for CE to know why “PE1” should be picked up besides the way mentioned by Dieter below, e.g, qualified TE information (besides reachability) known by CE, manual configuration, or PCE can help as described in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app <> .
发件人: CCAMP [] 代表 Dieter Beller
发送时间: 2014年3月7日 0:15
收件人: Rajan Rao
主题: Re: [CCAMP] Raw notes available for review/comment
Hi Rao,
On 06.03.2014 17:01, Rajan Rao wrote:
Authors of 'lsp-diversity',  'uni-extensions' & 'route-exclusion-pathkey'
My question on your uses cases was the following:
How does CE know which PE to talk to for the first LSP setup?  What is the assumption?
assuming that the CE does not have any information other than the destination CE is reachable via
both PEs , it will just pick one arbitrarily.

Thx Lou for session notes.
-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:30 PM
Subject: [CCAMP] Raw notes available for review/comment
        Please take a look at the raw minutes in etherpad (link below) and correct as you see fit.  Note these are *unreviewed/raw* notes.
Much thanks,
Link -
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP mailing list