Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Fri, 28 February 2014 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F591A0316 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xnmvTd-piNU for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:21:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB121A028A for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:21:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16271; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393622463; x=1394832063; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=QXXikwSA+OXdoqHFJWObG7dZQEgL3MYlRf6MzPEQd8c=; b=mnq5JvrM3O6heHJ5WdMiLQwZDZmvEyFUJJc209X9zXePha/wjeohwl61 683yoQriiTbqhCrRZB4vfRbUDQi6EbKTERDo/Li3VuXGqf21EP0lGyYLL vIz0lJZwI5R5RoEOYEgCOUvfr0450GuIVTXCJEjIgJg70hdh0sauFWK9L M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwFAMb8EFOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgkJEO1e4QohdgRUWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsFBgUNAQgRAwEBAQEnKAYLFAkIAgQOBRuHSgMRDcQ+DYcdF4w/ggUNBAeENwSWTYFtgTKLMYVIgy2CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,564,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="307293902"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2014 21:21:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1SLL2v8013287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:21:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.212]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:21:02 -0600
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
Thread-Index: AQHPMdsUqW49vINDCkW/awk6nMLomJrGMiKAgAAgTQCAA9lggIAA1cMAgAAHuACAAASDgIAAF+4AgAAtuACAACGRAP//wlkAgABdtQD//67RAA==
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:21:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CF366814.9E762%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTtR97tfgRBLOWoewESuzT=KdQ3C8ZEvqCgu5v0R_+V=HA@mail.gmail.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: [10.86.244.129]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF3668149E762zaliciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FxHlRmHxuuYvDKE82949kGlOjH0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:21:08 -0000
Hi- It's a technology specific use case, which is handled by "G"MPLS. I sincerely think what we need is an info or BCP draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:14 PM To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>> Cc: "lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>" <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update Zafar, Hi! You still haven't answered my question. It needs a simple yes/no answer. Do you agree that wrt alien wavelengths, "signaling a setup request without knowing what upstream-label to use" is not some remote special case? Regards, -Pavan On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Pavan- This is an academic optimization. What we can do is to write a BCP or info draft based on method already documented in RFC3473 and wson signaling. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:20 PM To: "lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>" <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>> Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update @Lou - Thanks for lending some direction to this thread (it was going in cycles). Zafar/Giovanni, Do you agree that wrt alien wavelengths, "signaling a setup request without knowing what upstream-label to use" is not some remote special case? Yes or No? Regards, -Pavan On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote: The use of / debate on acceptable label set goes all the way back to its introduction. It always came down to a trade off of what mechanism would be sufficient for the normal ("G") cases and to what level we'd optimize for special cases. I think the draft implicitly revisits one particular trade off decision and argues that what was once a special case is now a common case -- that should be optimized. I really think this is the first point to reach any agreement on. I personally think that the use of a special or reserved upstream label is a fine way, with established precedent, to indicate such special processing. (That is, if we were to decided that such is warranted in this case.) Lou On 02/28/2014 09:36 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote: > Hi John, > > yes clear, I was just bringing back on the table discussion we got on > the same problem. The second option in better (although contention > window is reduced but not avoided) however we had no numbers to justify > that such optimization or … at least not so strong reasons to update a > mechanism that was proven to work. > > Cheers > G > > > On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:10, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net> > <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>> wrote: > >> Giovanni, >> >> Use of acceptable doubles the signaling overhead and opens up a >> contention window: >> >> 1) Path >> 2) Path_err w/ acceptable label >> 3) Contention window >> 4) Path w/ acceptable label >> 5) Resv >> >> Versus: >> >> 1) Path w/ downstream assigned label request >> 2) Resv w/ downstream assigned label >> >> Also, it’s generally considered a bad idea™ to include error messages >> in the normal operation of a protocol >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> John >> >> *From:* CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Giovanni >> Martinelli (giomarti) >> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 4:54 AM >> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram >> *Cc:* ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> >> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update >> >> Hi Vishnu, >> >> On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com> >> <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft U… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Dra… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft U… Vishnu Pavan Beeram