Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08

Hi,

I think that making the RB identifier globally unique in a domain is strong
constraint.
32 bit RB identifier were introduced to follow the unnumbered if id space,
allowing nodes  to use the same logic.
RB identifier space are more likely (and easily) locally-assigned ids, not
domain-globally aligned.
In addition this would make node configuration much more complicated, it
would be more error prone, and merging those administrative domains far for
seamless.

I agree with Lou that the required attributes are right for
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (and could be considered for RSVP-RO, to force it
on a know transparent section). I see RBI using only RSVP-RO and not
LSP-REQUIRED-ATTRIBUTES for the reason mentioned above.

Cyril

On 4 August 2014 21:27, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> Young,
>     I think the text is inconsistent (looking back on -07 and the
> emails).  My primary focus / desire at this time is clarifying the
> existing text without making any substantive technical changes.
>
> The narrative implies [RSVP-RO], but the editors' intent was
> LSP_REQUIRED_ATRIBUTES object.  I personally (all hats off) think
> LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is right for WA method and [RSVP-RO] is
> right for RBI.  With hats on, I'd like the text to reflect
> implementations and the LC.
>
> At this point it might be useful to hear from others in the WG.
>
> WG/All/Authors/Contributors,
>     Does anyone else care to weigh in?
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
> On 8/4/2014 7:00 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > Good point on RBI info! I can think of the RB Identifier (32 bit field)
> to imply the node/interface to which wavelength conversion would take place
> if we were to use LSP_REQUIRED_ATRIBUTES object. In other words, making the
> RB Identifier globally significant in a domain, per hop treatment of the
> RBs is possible.
> >
> > On the other hand, a better way to treat Resource Block Information
> seems to be using an alternative way (i.e., using HOP Attributes/ERO
> subobject per [RSVP-RO]).
> >
> > If making the RB ID globally significant creates a problem, we need to
> make some technical changes to the draft. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Young
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:30 PM
> > To: Leeyoung
> > Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute
> Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
> >
> > Young,
> >     Thanks for the quick response.  I "get" how WA method works, but am
> less clear how Resource Block Information (e.g., Regeneration control and
>  Attribute Conversion control) works per node. For example, how would
> control of wavelength conversion at a particular node work?
> >
> > Perhaps just running through this one simple case will help...
> >
> > Again, as a reminder, the desire is to document existing intent rather
> than redefining the solution.
> >
> > Much thanks,
> > Lou
> >
> > On 8/4/2014 5:08 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >> Hi Lou,
> >>
> >> Since the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is meant to allow each
> >> transit node to inspect the TLV's under it, each transit node will
> >> inspect RBI or WA method and apply if it has relevance for the node;
> >> otherwise just pass to the next hop. (Section 5 of RFC 5420 has this
> >> clause: "This means that this object SHOULD only be used for
> >> attributes that require support at some transit LSRs and so require
> >> examination at all transit LSRs.")
> >>
> >> This may not be optimal but a way to get around technical changes as
> you pointed out not to do so at this moment.
> >>
> >> If we want this to be optimal and require technical changes to the
> draft, we can go with an alternative, utilizing [RSVP-RO] draft with ERO
> subobject/HOP Attributes to encode RBI or WA method as its TLVs.
> >>
> >> Whichever the WG wants, we can go either way.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Young
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:44 PM
> >> To: Leeyoung; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP
> >> Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
> >>
> >> Young,
> >>
> >> On 8/4/2014 4:29 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Lou, here's my comment on your comment. In a nutshell replacing
> [RSVP-RO] with [RFC5420] will solve the confusion.
> >>>
> >>> Please see in-line for details.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Young
> >> So you are saying that Resource Block Information and Wavelength
> Assignment Method are encoded end-to-end and *never* have
> hop/node/interface specific meaning (as they are each encoded as an
> Attribute TLV in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object), is this correct?
> >>
> >> ARE YOU SURE?
> >>
> >> How do you envision the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object conveying
> >> per-hop information? (As discussed in section 3.2 and the first
> >> paragraph on section 4.2.)
> >>
> >> Lou
> >> ....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>