IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <kpithewan@infinera.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 A9B5C21F9BC4 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 mXm6S3WtYs-3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com [8.4.225.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB37E21E80B3 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:45:13 -0700
From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAG5uQwAAdbOAAAAUWKEAAHaZGAAA2DHKA=
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:45:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD1FFC@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
References: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD1A47@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F3BDC@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F3BDC@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.156.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD1FFCSVEXDBPROD1infi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
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, 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.

Thanks
Khuzema

From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:17 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
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.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:45 PM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
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.

Regards
Khuzema

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

Khuzema:

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.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
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.

Khuzema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email