Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Khuzema Pithewan <> Wed, 31 July 2013 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B5C21F9BC4 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXm6S3WtYs-3 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB37E21E80B3 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:13 -0700
From: Khuzema Pithewan <>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>, "CCAMP (" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:45:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD1FFCSVEXDBPROD1infi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:45:23 -0000

Hi Zafar,

The point I am making here is.. the 2 approaches.. Admin Status and LSP_Attributes, are exactly same in terms of object re-use and both of them defines new bits for enhanced functionality. The LSP_Attribute approach has additional overhead of managing a separate control LSP, which is not desirable.


From: Zafar Ali (zali) []
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:17 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Hi Khuzema:

For signaling inquiry LSP with resource locking, we are using the Pre-Planned LSP flag as-is as defined in RFC6001. Given this, we are defining a new flag when inquiry LSP needs to be signal without resource locking.


Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:45 PM
To: zali <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Well.. not really.

You are defining new bits for LSP_ATTRIBUTES for resource locking... aren't you?

Instead of doing that, you can define bits in ADMIN_STATUS and save new LSP life cycle management, which would be quite cumbersome.


From: Zafar Ali (zali) []
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (<>)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00


The point is to reuse what already exists. The Pre-Planned LSP flag in the Attribute Flags TLV of LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is already defined in [RFC5420] and is a glove fit.


Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Another point I spoke about in the meeting ..

Why can't we extend Admin Status object to signal resource locking, checking for re-optimization. Since this operation is typically done in maintenance window by Admin, it may make sense to use Admin Status Object. Moreover, we have lots of bits available/undefined in Admin Status object.

This will save network element to manage life of additional LSP and control plane failure related issues attached to the additional LSP.