IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Question on LSP diversity

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 06 March 2014 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DC01A0357 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwFgMBSN0jgz for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0B81A0361 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s26ECroS031261; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:12:53 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b5b1.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.181.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s26ECqhq031221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:12:53 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'" <ggalimbe@cisco.com>, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126AD42B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CF3E3D81.5A117%ggalimbe@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF3E3D81.5A117%ggalimbe@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:12:53 -0000
Message-ID: <0b8d01cf3946$2ab8c5c0$802a5140$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0B8E_01CF3946.2AC23BA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGbG02+R1wzyekaKpQ+a8RQncVl2Js8VIOQ
Content-language: en-gb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/HvLj7bqSLKbvKMargLUR7c23hAU
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question on LSP diversity
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:13:08 -0000

We may learn something from the ingress/egress protection work in MPLS and from
the PW protection work in PWE3.
 
My personal view is that we continue to mix the concept of a service request and
an LSP set-up. I think this is hurting us.
 
A
 
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele Maria
Galimberti (ggalimbe)
Sent: 06 March 2014 14:01
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question on LSP diversity
 
Hi Daniele, 
 
Also the case 2 in some conditions requires the Core nodes need to co-ordinate
each other.
This is unless the edge node has the knowledge of the LSPs ERO
 
Regards,
Gabriele
 

http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif
 
 
Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl
 
Via Philips, 12
20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
 <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/> www.cisco.com/global/IT/
 
ggalimbe@cisco.com
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:35 PM
To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Question on LSP diversity
 
Hi,
 
bringing this to the list due to time constraints.
 
We said we have 4 use cases for LSP diversity:
-          1. Single homing
-          2. Dual homing
-          3. LSPs with different edge and core nodes
-          4. Multi domain
 
In cases 3 and 4 there is the need for "coordination" between edge nodes. Is
such coordination in CCAMP scope or we assume that "somehow" the two edge nodes
exchange such piece of info (e.g. NMS, the triangle with the eye, or whatever)?
 
BR
Daniele

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email