Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou.

Let me go through the references listed below and get back.

Thanks,
Rakesh


-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 6:17 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

Rakesh,
	See below.

On 8/16/2012 5:59 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Please see inline..<RG>..
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:42 PM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
> 
> Rakesh,
> 
> On 8/16/2012 5:26 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> We had several email exchanges on the alias on "signaling of 
>> co-routed LSPs" before it was added in the draft.
> 
> I presume you're referring to your private e-mail exchange that was forwarded to the list, mid-stream, under the subject "Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03".
> 
> I addressed this in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13729.html.  If you disagree with that e-mail, please respond to it.
> 
>>
>> Regarding A)
>>
>> I agree with you that GMPLS signaling can be used for co-routed LSPs 
>> and has many advantages.
>>
>> Goal of the associated bidirectional LSPs is to tie the two 
>> independent LSPs together. These two LSPs may be non co-routed or 
>> co-routed. It is useful for an application to specify the node to 
>> request both LSPs go on the same path. Do you agree?
> 
> Not sure I understand your question.  Per RFC5654 and RFC6373 there is a stated need for associated and co-routed MPLS TP transport paths.  As discussed in RFC6373, RFC3473 already supports co-routed bidirectional LSPs.  The draft we're discussing covers associated bidirectional.
> 
> Can you rephrase the issue/function that you believe is not addressed in current signaling RFCs?
> 
> <RG> I understand what you are saying and do not see any issue there.
> But I am not looking at it from that view point.

Actually, I'm not making any statement on if there's an issue or not.
I'm asking you to state the issue or new function that you'd like addressed by a new mechanism.  It's really simple, if there's no issue or need for a new function, then there's no need to defined a new mechanism.

I'm guessing that you see an issue or limitation, and I'd genuinely like to understand what it is.

> All we are saying is
> that when bidirectional LSPs are associated via signaling, they could 
> take the same path and it can be provisioned to do so.

Well, this is already stated in RFC5654 (and referenced RFC6373).  If that's it, we can easily close this topic.

Lou

> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> Lou
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:10 PM
>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>
>> Rakesh,
>> 	Such major changes (in scope and functionality) to WG drafts are usually discussed with the WG prior to the authors/editors just publishing the changes.  But, this is a judgment call by the document editors in how, quoting rfc2418, they "ensur[e] that the contents of the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by the working group."
>>
>> So let's jump into discussing the changes.
>>
>> As I see it this draft introduces several major functional changes that have not been discussed by the WG.  Correct me if I get them wrong, but I believe they include:
>> 1) Introduction of a second method for signaling Co-routed LSPs
>> 2) Support for FRR bypass tunnels for piggybacked on the TP bidirectional LSP mechanisms.
>>
>>    There are also other changes, but I'll defer discussing them
>>    until the discussion on the above is concluded.
>>
>> Is this correct?
>>
>> Assuming yes, I have questions about both rational and specific mechanisms.  For now let's look at the former, so please:
>>
>> A) Articulate the issues/limitations with using the RFC3473 defined mechanisms for (co-routed) bidirectional LSPs that you'd like to see addressed.
>>
>> B.1) Articulate the FRR/GMPLS-related issue you'd like to address?
>>
>> B.2) Articulate why this issue should be solved in a TP-specific and not GMPLS generic fashion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 4:26 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Please advise if you think detailed email is required. 
>>> We believe latest draft summarizes the changes well and we could start review/discussions from there.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:00 PM
>>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>>
>>> Rakesh,
>>> 	Is this the start of the thread that I requested in 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13729.html
>>>
>>> In particular, is it the response to:
>>>> I'd like to ask that someone (Rakesh, Fei, etc.) review each of the 
>>>> proposed change and the rational for each change (in one or in 
>>>> separate e-mails). The WG discussion can then really begin on the 
>>>> proposed changes. (Which are quite substantial both in scope and
>>>> implication.)
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> On 8/16/2012 3:19 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> We have uploaded a new version of this draft with following changes:
>>>  
>>> 1.  Added a section on Signaling of Co-routed LSPs
>>>
>>> 2.  Added clarification on Signaling of Associated Bidirectional 
>>> Protection LSPs
>>>
>>> 3.  Added a section on Signaling of Auto-tunnel Mesh-group LSPs
>>>
>>> 4.   Added clarification on Signaling of Inter-domain Associated  Bidirectional LSPs 
>>>
>>> 5.  The Extended ASSOCIATION object format with Association Type "Associated Bidirectional LSP". Clarified on how to populate different fields in this object.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> We believe that some of these changes were necessary to avoid the interoperability issues due to potentially different interpretations.
>>>>
>>>> Your review comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rakesh
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>>> Behalf Of [e-mail]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:53 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> 	Title           : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs
>>>> 	Author(s)       : Fei Zhang
>>>>                           Ruiquan Jing
>>>>                           Rakesh Gandhi
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 17
>>>> 	Date            : 2012-08-15
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document [RFC5654],
>>>>    describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
>>>>    to-point LSPs.
>>>>
>>>>    This document provides a method to bind two unidirectional Label
>>>>    Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP.  The
>>>>    association is achieved by defining the new Association Type in the
>>>>    Extended ASSOCIATION object.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ex
>>>> t
>>>> -
>>>> a
>>>> ssociated-lsp
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-asso
>>>> c
>>>> i
>>>> a
>>>> ted-lsp-04
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ex
>>>> t
>>>> -
>>>> a
>>>> ssociated-lsp-04
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>