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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 2A96F11E813A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 sfQ8vqXcJOYK for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A3521F9FDA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381296368; x=1382505968; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=wQ6nyQfnA1Zwi5tnrYj3T/MH2WC0Zo2TK5unAnEZvmk=; b=RDhZn/CQB0tkrBR/MlfWjJAOkXv/0CwplmMLFpl1fL3MYZ6qfkqX2JMI QpHkN0pPxFtBaKmEMeDS57h2LLLw0X7j7dSLaJLGRAScoi5cfW6y+BtR1 FR8nJbzXoe1G3XtFaZ8OJwFcnSxQZ31Gc8svH8UAk3WLONVT91X9zEx9u I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAIHoVFKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwc4UsExgSQWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsXBgEIEQMBAQELGQQuCxQJCAEBBAESCAESh2sMuTyPEzgGgxmBBAOZMZBRgWaBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1060,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="269835378"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 05:26:07 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r995Q77W024484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:26:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.14]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:26:07 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, 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: Ac6/mpvpLKMUWgFOTvGxqewIiE5jbQEWRmkQABjHHYAAEh8IgAAGSCKA
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:26:06 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654FB8@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <a216a142647f4616aba1bffd7b5b0d6f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.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: [10.82.233.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-ID: <4F8D21C16EC45A4E9BAC81413A0D3BA8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:26:24 -0000

Hi John: 

No, RFC 5520/ RFC5533 are fine. The issue is that solution proposed by
draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-00.txt forces customers to
deploy a stateful PCE where PCE need to remember path it has served for
indefinite time. 

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 6:26 PM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>,
"ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

>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
>> 
>> 
>
>