Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 01:17 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 D5F2921F84EC; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:17:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 A45RJfV8wDRu; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2639B21F84F6; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ100D8KVKQPD@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:17:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ1000N0VJ950@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:17:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGX67176; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:17:14 +0800
Received: from SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:16:34 +0800
Received: from SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.206]) by SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.153]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:17:45 +0800
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:17:03 +0000
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4F31285C.6040107@labn.net>
X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.51]
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>
Message-id: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE21A56B843@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID
Thread-index: AQHM3mtqrImy7nMdPk6BWVdOo7CN0ZYqcwYAgABMRgCABdMwAIAAD9MAgAAHloCAAE2MAIABRMig
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <2EEA459CD95CCB4988BFAFC0F2287B5C25917498@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <OF8234A400.3AFAFF34-ON4825799D.002C2EA9-4825799D.002EA8F1@zte.com.cn> <CABP12JzdeFE=05KXe9PB3TYLzRcTqkW=0LOF1jsFX4Ai=2WuwQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F31285C.6040107@labn.net>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID
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, 08 Feb 2012 01:17:41 -0000
Hi Lou, I am always assume that the Z9-tunnel-num equals to A1-tunnel-num (for co-routed bidirectional LSP). The motivation (from the text of RFC6370 and the past discussion on MPLS-TP identifier) of two tunnel-nums is for simplifying associated bidirectional signaling, for co-routed bidirectional LSP, two tunnel-nums are unnecessary. If I am wrong, please correct me.(cc MPLS WG) IMHO, the simplest way is to explicitly clarify that for co-routed bidirectional LSP, A1-tunnel-num=Z9-tunnel-num, maybe a clarification errata is needed for RFC6370. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Lou Berger > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:34 PM > To: Francesco Fondelli > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID > > Francesco, > From my perspective, the (minimum) requirements are being driven by > rfc6370. Take a look at sections 5.2 and 5.3, and see if you still think > more mechanisms are being defined than is necessary. > > Lou > > On 2/7/2012 3:56 AM, Francesco Fondelli wrote: > > > > Am I the only one here that feels "uncomfortable" with this approach and > > this additional Z9-Tunnel_Num index in GMPLS flying from egress to > > ingress (for no reason?!?)? It might be naive or even stupid but I'd > > like to understand why we have to add another index... please shed some > > light on me. > > > > [I'm talking about co-routed bidi, I don't care about associated] > > > > thank you > > ciao > > FF > > > > 2012/2/7 <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn <mailto:zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>> > > > > > > Vero > > > > Why is tunnel number not known by node A? The tunnel number should > > has been carried in Session and Sender Template/Filter Spec object > > and exchanged by node A and node Z during the LSP set-up. Correct me > > if I am wrong. > > > > According to the description of RFC6370, section 5.1 > > At each end point, a tunnel is uniquely identified by the end point's > > Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically, a > > "Tunnel Number" (Tunnel_Num) is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique > > within the context of the Node_ID. The motivation for each end > point > > having its own tunnel number is to allow a compact form for the > > MEP_ID. > > > > Which means that for co-routed bidrectional LSP, there are two > > tunnel numbers, one is locally assigned at node A and the other is > > locally assigned at node Z. > > If the signaling message is initialized at node A, the tunnel number > > carried in Session/Sender Template objects is locally assigned at > > node A. Of course, a new > > C-type,like type=8, can be defined in the class of SESSION to carry > > back the tunnel number assigned at node Z; but according to the > > discussion with George, I do not think it is a good idea which is > > not backward compatible. > > > > Regards > > > > Fei > > > > > > *Vero Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com > <mailto:vero.zheng@huawei.com>>* > > > > 2012-02-07 15:33 > > > > > > 收件人 > > "zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn <mailto:zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>" > > <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn <mailto:zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>> > > 抄送 > > "ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org > > <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> > > 主题 > > RE: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fei, > > > > Please see in-line. > > > > BR, > > Vero > > > > Fei, > > > > you wrote: > > > > First, > > “2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ccamp-mpls-tp-oio-01 > > > > The Global_ID Object and the ICC_Operator_ID Object are defined in > > this draft, which describes the procedure of corouted bidirectional > > LSP (associated bidirectional LSP is not covered in the current > > version) and requires that the same format( Global_ID or > > ICC_Operator_ID)is used along the LSP. > > > > Which is not true. The Object we defined could be carried in both > > Path/Resv message, and is not restricted either to co-routed > > bi-directional LSP or associated bi-directional LSP. > > > > <fei> > > Although either co-routed or associated bidirectional LSP is not > > mentioned in this draft , according to the descripition in section > > 2.3, " If the node agrees, it MUST use the same format of Operator > > ID. The same C-Type of OIO MUST be carried in the Resv message", > > which means that the procedure is for corouted bidrectional LSP. > > The above is just my understanding and provided for discussion, and > > if it is wrong or inaccurate, please let me know. > > </fei> > > The procedure described above aims to guarantee the sender and the > > receiver using the same C-Type of the object, i.e. both end using > > Global_ID or both using ICC_Operator_ID. > > > > Second, > > 3. > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-0 > 1 > > > > > > The Global_ID is carried as a TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object, which > > will appear in the Path/Resv message of corouted bidrectional LSP > > and only appear in the Path message of associated bidirectional LSP. > > Furthermore, this draft defined a Connection TLV used to carry the > > local tunnel number assigned at Z9 nodes in the scenario of corouted > > bidirectional LSP. > > > > Why “tunnel number” is carried in the Connection TLV? I don't see > > its necessary for both co-route/ associated bi-directional LSP. > > Could you explain? > > > > <fei> > > As I said, it is useful for corouted (not associated) bidirectional > > LSP, consider that there is one LSP (LSP1, initiated at node A) > > between node A/Z. > > If the CC-V pakcet is sent from node Z, the MEP_ID of node Z will > > be inserted in the OAM packets, which is organized by > > node_ID::tunnel_num::LSP_num > > (section 5.2.1 or 7.2.2 of RFC6370), and if this MEP_ID is not > > pre-stored at node A, it can not judge whether this MEP_ID is valid. > > See the description in section 5.1.1.2 > > (*Mis-Connectivity Defect*) of RFC6371. > > LSP1 > > A-------------------------------Z > > > > > > </fei> > > Why is tunnel number not known by node A? The tunnel number should > > has been carried in Session and Sender Template/Filter Spec object > > and exchanged by node A and node Z during the LSP set-up. Correct me > > if I am wrong. > > > > BR, > > Vero > > > > Thanks. > > > > Vero > > > > * > > From:* ccamp-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> > > [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>] > *On > > Behalf Of *zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn <mailto:zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>* > > Sent:* Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:50 PM* > > To:* ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>* > > Subject:* [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID > > > > > > Hi CCAMPers > > > > As discussed in the last IETF meeting and mailinglist, the Global_ID > > should be carried in the signaling messages. One reason is that the > > judgement of a mis-connectivity defect needs the A1/Z9 nodes to > > pre-store each other's MEP_ID, whose format is: > > Gobal_ID+Node_ID+Tunnel_num+LSP_num. > > > > Fortunately, there are several drafts related to this topic now, > > > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-01. > > > > The Globa_ID is incorporated into the ASSOCIATION object in the > > current version, which guarantees that the association is global > > unique. Since the ASSOCIATION object is used across different LSPs, > > just my2cents, the defined format is deficient to handle more > > scenarios. For example: > > > > (1) Considering a corouted bidirectional LSP, which is not > > protected by other LSPs through control plane and/or does not share > > the same resoures with other LSPs. In these cases, the ASSOCIATION > > object will not be carried in the sigaling messages. > > > > (2) Considering an associated bidirectional LSP, although the > > ASSOCIATION object is carried in the sigaling messages, the > > global_ID incorporated in the ASSOCIATION object only > > indicates the global prefix of the A1 or Z9 nodes. If this LSP is > > across different domains, I think the current format is also > > deficient (A1 does not know the gobal ID of Z9 node or Z9 nodes does > > not know the global ID of A1 ). > > > > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ccamp-mpls-tp-oio-01 > > > > The Global_ID Object and the ICC_Operator_ID Object are defined in > > this draft, which describes the procedure of corouted bidirectional > > LSP (associated bidirectional LSP is not covered in the current > > version) and requires that the same format( Global_ID or > > ICC_Operator_ID)is used along the LSP. > > > > 3. > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-0 > 1 > > > > > > The Global_ID is carried as a TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object, which > > will appear in the Path/Resv message of corouted bidrectional LSP > > and only appear in the Path message of associated bidirectional LSP. > > Furthermore, this draft defined a Connection TLV used to carry the > > local tunnel number assigned at Z9 nodes in the scenario of corouted > > bidirectional LSP. > > > > > > The above materials only provide the rough background. > > > > > > Hope to hear the opinions from the WG that how to carry the > > Global_ID, then move the work forward. > > > > > > Best regards > > > > ;) > > > > Fei > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CCAMP mailing list > > CCAMP@ietf.org <mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Vero Zheng
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Vero Zheng
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Francesco Fondelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Francesco Fondelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Francesco Fondelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global… Lou Berger