RE: New draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group
"So, Ning" <ning.so@verizonbusiness.com> Wed, 29 October 2008 22:01 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5F528C3F7 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.702, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjU-xtvPFb9M for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A5C28C3EF for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KvIwv-000AfE-M3 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:33 +0000
Received: from [199.249.25.195] (helo=omzesmtp01a.verizonbusiness.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <ning.so@verizonbusiness.com>) id 1KvIwo-000AeN-5F for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:29 +0000
Received: from dgismtp01.wcomnet.com ([166.38.58.141]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0K9I00D6XSPOO000@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dgismtp01.wcomnet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by dgismtp01.mcilink.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08 (built Sep 22 2005)) with SMTP id <0K9I00FOHSPNKN@dgismtp01.mcilink.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ASHSRV139.mcilink.com ([153.39.68.165]) by dgismtp01.mcilink.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K9I00F75SPNKM@dgismtp01.mcilink.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ASHEVS010.mcilink.com ([153.39.69.135]) by ASHSRV139.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:23 +0000
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:51:22 +0000
From: "So, Ning" <ning.so@verizonbusiness.com>
Subject: RE: New draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group
In-reply-to: <84042721A487BB4C83FC772185400CB707C7498E@ASHEVS010.mcilink.com>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-id: <84042721A487BB4C83FC772185400CB707C7498F@ASHEVS010.mcilink.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C93A10.7BD479A9"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Thread-topic: New draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group
Thread-index: Ack6BXCmfOqsCudJSfyuUtnJ5SiqIwAAhUZfAAHBfvAAAHk+MA==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <C52E4412.EF58%tom.nadeau@bt.com> <84042721A487BB4C83FC772185400CB707C7498E@ASHEVS010.mcilink.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2008 21:51:23.0041 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BF68110:01C93A10]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>
Tom, Most of the trouble-shooting mechanisms working today should be able to work across CTG as well. I am sure I have not thought of everything, but I have not seen any problems. Could you please be more specific on the problem and the trouble-shooting method you are thinking here? Ning So Lead Engineer Data Traffic Engineering 972-729-7905 ________________________________ From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tom.nadeau@bt.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:47 PM To: So, Ning; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Andrew G. (Andy) Malis Subject: Re: New draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group Have you guys given any thought to the OAM ramifications of your approach? I see no discussion of this in the draft. I ask because extensions were done to LSP ping which took great pains to make work correctly. Have you thought about how to trouble-shoot this mechanism if there are faults? --Tom On 10/29/08 4:32 PM, "So, Ning" <ning.so@verizonbusiness.com> wrote: Dear all, We have uploaded the draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-req uirement-00.txt Abstract This document states a traffic distribution problem in today's IP/ MPLS network when multiple links are configured between two routers. The document presents a Composite Transport Group framework as the solution for the problems and specifies a set of requirements for Composite Transport Group(CTG). We appreciate your input/comments and look forward to discussing in Minneapolis. Ning So Lead Engineer Data Traffic Engineering 972-729-7905