Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 16 October 2013 18:37 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 E732711E817B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6T9k6-7EAZRJ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C037611E814C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9GIbR1F014805; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:37:27 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9GIbQFs014788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:37:26 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:37:25 +0100
Message-ID: <013201ceca9e$c2bc0ab0$48342010$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac7Kni6QedlajqGxR0SxjsRig87Mng==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'CCAMP WG' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:37:42 -0000
It looks like everything was agreed for the next revision, but then you stalled. Can you get a revision out really fast? If you do I can get it to the IESG before Vancouver. If you can't the OSPF document gets backed up behind it. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Joel M. Halpern > Sent: 02 October 2013 19:33 > To: Lou Berger > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; CCAMP WG; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn- > g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] I: R: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709- > info-model-11.txt > > While I tend to think of optimizations and gaps as very different > things, I can live with the text changes. > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/1/13 8:26 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Daniele, > > > >> Sounds reasonable? > > > > While I still like option 3, I can live with the revised text. > > > > Joel, > > > > Is the revised text acceptable? > > > > Lou > > > > On 10/01/2013 03:40 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > >> Hi Lou, > >> > >> No no no, no OSPF discussion reopening. The OSPF drafts clearly states that > only supported priorities must be advertised, what does not say is why (i.e. for > optimization). > >> With section 8 and section 10 modified as below, there is no need to modify > OSPF as the "why" is stated in the gap-analysis draft. > >> > >> Trying to summarize. > >> Section 8 as you proposed: > >>> 8. Maximum LSP Bandwidth > >>> Maximum LSP bandwidth is currently advertised per priority in > >>> the common part of the ISCD. Section 5 reviews some of the > >>> implications of advertising OTN network information using ISCDs, > >>> and identifies the need for a more optimized solution. > >>> While strictly not required, such an optimization effort should > >>> also consider the optimization of the per priority maximum LSP > >>> bandwidth advertisement of both fixed and variable ODU types. > >> > >> Section 10 (as per your last proposal) > >>> "[RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability > >>> and usage. As defined, each is advertised independent of the number > >>> of priorities supported by a network, and even unsupported > >>> priorities are included.. As is the case in Section 8, addressing any > >>> inefficiency with such advertisements is not required to support OTN > >>> networks. But any such inefficiency should also be considered as part > >>> of the optimization effort identified in Section 5." > >> > >> Sounds reasonable? > >> BR > >> Authors > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >>> Sent: lunedì 30 settembre 2013 23:39 > >>> To: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > >>> Cc: Joel M. Halpern; rtg-dir@ietf.org; CCAMP WG; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709- > >>> info-model.all@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>> Subject: Re: I: [RTG-DIR] R: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn- > >>> g709-info-model-11.txt > >>> > >>> Sergio, > >>> See below. > >>> > >>> On 9/30/2013 11:15 AM, BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) wrote: > >>>> Lou, > >>>> our answer in line marked "authors" > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> Authors > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> Daniele, > >>>> > >>>> On 09/30/2013 09:59 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > >>>>> Lou, Joel, > >>>>> > >>>>> The text proposed sounds good but it only states the problem without > >>> any hint on the solutions (i.e. says there is an inefficiency but doesn’t say > >>> that advertising only supported priorities is a way to address such > >>> inefficiency). > >>>>> There are two options: > >>>> > >>>> Well, there's also the option of dropping the sections. > >>>> > >>>> Authors> as already said The basic scope of the draft is to underline > >>>> gaps, and even if what described in Ch.8 and 10, do not prevent > >>>> routing to work, it is suggested here an requirement for optimization > >>>> based on OTN requirements (e.g. no need to advertise fixed ODU > >>>> container Max LSP BW since implicit in the signal type.). So, in our > >>>> opinion, no dropping. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 1. Improve the text (the NEW one) saying e.g. only the advertisement > >>>>> of bandwidth for supported priorities is needed > >>>> > >>>> I always find it easier to make a decision when the tradeoffs are concrete. > >>> Can you (authors) propose revised text? > >>>> > >>>> Authors> "[RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability > >>>> and usage. As defined, each is advertised independent of the number of > >>>> priorities supported by a network vs. to advertise only the > >>>> information related to the really supported priorities as possible > >>>> optimization improvement. As is the case in Section 8, addressing any > >>>> inefficiency with such advertisements is not required to support OTN > >>>> networks. But any such inefficiency should also be considered as part > >>>> of the optimization effort identified in Section 5." > >>>> > >>> > >>> How about: > >>> OLD > >>> As defined, each is advertised independent of the number > >>> of priorities supported by a network vs. to advertise only the > >>> information related to the really supported priorities as possible > >>> optimization improvement. > >>> NEW > >>> As defined, each is advertised independent of the number > >>> of priorities supported by a network, and even unsupported > >>> priorities are included. > >>> > >>> > >>>>> 2. Adopt the NEW text as it is and move the remaining part of the text to > >>> the OSPF draft (where we say e.g. that only bandwidth for supporter > >>> priorities need to be advertised but don't say why). > >>>>> > >>>> Doesn't the OSPF draft already already do what you say, i.e., advertise only > >>> used priorities. What specific text are you proposing to add? > >>>>> > >>>> Authors> No, it doesn't. > >>> > >>> So the OSPF draft currently says that all priorities are advertised? > >>> Really???? If so adding this new text does little to change this. Are you really > >>> advocating reopening discussion on the OSPF draft in addition to this one? > >>> > >>> Lou > >>> > >>>> ... Text proposed is the old one that totally address explanation in our view > >>> :" [RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage. All of > >>> them have to be advertised independently on the number of priorities > >>> supported by the implementation.Considering that the advertisement of all > >>> the different supported signal types will originate large LSAs, it is advised to > >>> advertise only the information related to the really supported priorities. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Lou > >>>> > >>>>> Re all the other comments/suggestion we're ok and will fix them as > >>> suggested. > >>>>> > >>>>> BR > >>>>> Authors > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >>>>>> Sent: venerdì 27 settembre 2013 21:55 > >>>>>> To: Joel M. Halpern > >>>>>> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; CCAMP WG; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info- > >>>>>> model.all@tools.ietf.org; BELOTTI, SERGIO \(SERGIO\); > >>>>>> rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] R: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: > >>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709- info-model-11.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Great. So you and I are in agreement. We'll see what the authors > >>>>>> have to say... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 3:26pm, September 27, 2013, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >>>>>>> The proposed alternative text would suffice, although personally I > >>>>>>> would just remove the two sections. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yours, > >>>>>>> Joel > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 9/27/13 3:00 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > >>>>>>>> Joel, > >>>>>>>> Does the proposed altnerate text address your comment (assuming > >>>>>>>> the author's want to keep the sections)? If not, can you suggest > >>> changes? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Lou > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 09/27/2013 02:30 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Lou, thanks for stepping in. > >>>>>>>>> With your explanation I can live with the LSP text as it is. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I look forward to further conversation on the other point. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yours, > >>>>>>>>> Joel > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 9/27/13 1:37 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Joel/Authors, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I thought I might jump in on two points: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2013 4:50 AM, BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Joel, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your comments. > >>>>>>>>>>> Below in line our reply, marked "authors". > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Given that this document is about mapping to G.709, it is > >>>>>>>>>>> unclear what is intended by the usage of "LSP". My guess is > >>>>>>>>>>> that it is intended to mean Label Switch Paths set up by GMPLS > >>>>>>>>>>> to carry OTU/UDU elements. > >>>>>>>>>>> It should be stated explicitly. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Authors> We can specify this as you suggest even if we > >>>>>>>>>>> Authors> considered not > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary to specify the usage of LSP in relation to data plane > >>>>>>>>>>> specific. Encoding type should cope with this issue. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Joel, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I suspect that the usage of LSP in the absence of the MPLS data > >>>>>>>>>> plane is what's causing confusion here. Is this correct? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If so, I think GMPLS referencing controlled data paths > >>>>>>>>>> (circuits) by the common name of Label Switched Path (LSP) is > >>>>>>>>>> sufficiently established that this document doesn't need to > >>>>>>>>>> revisit it. In any case, the document already provides context: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> GMPLS routing and signaling, as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC5307], > >>>>>>>>>> [RFC3473] and [RFC4328], provides the mechanisms for basic > >>> GMPLS > >>>>>>>>>> control of OTN networks based on the 2001 revision of the G.709 > >>>>>>>>>> specification. > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> Background information and a framework for the GMPLS protocol > >>>>>>>>>> extensions need to support [G.709-2012] is provided in [OTN-FWK]. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [OTN-FWK] has the often repeated concept: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> GMPLS extends Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to > >>> encompass > >>>>>>>>>> time division multiplexing (TDM) networks (e.g., Synchronous > >>>>>>>>>> Optical NETwork (SONET)/ Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), > >>>>>>>>>> Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH), and G.709 sub-lambda), > >>>>>>>>>> lambda switching optical networks, and spatial switching (e.g., > >>>>>>>>>> incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). The GMPLS > >>>>>>>>>> architecture is provided in [RFC3945], > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If this doesn't cover the comment, can you elaborate on what you > >>>>>>>>>> want explicitly stated? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Section 8 on Maximum LSP Bandwdith seems to be objecting to > >>> too > >>>>>>>>>>> much information leading to a "waste of bits". While possibly > >>>>>>>>>>> of interest to the WG, that does not seem to fit a gap > >>>>>> analysis. > >>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, section 10 on Priority Support reads as > >>>>>>>>>>> implementation advice rather than a gap needing protocol > >>> changes. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Authors> The basic scope of the draft is to underline gaps, and > >>>>>>>>>>> Authors> even > >>>>>>>>>>> if what described in Ch.8 and 10, do not prevent routing to > >>>>>>>>>>> work , it is suggested here an requirement for optimization > >>>>>>>>>>> based on OTN requirements (e.g. no need to advertise fixed ODU > >>>>>>>>>>> container Max LSP BW since implicit in the signal type.) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Authors, > >>>>>>>>>> I completely agree with Joel on this point, furthermore sections > >>>>>>>>>> 10 and > >>>>>>>>>> 8 overlap. One approach to address his point would be to simply > >>>>>>>>>> drop both sections. An alternative is try to rephrase them to > >>>>>>>>>> address Joel's points. I've taken a pass at the latter below, > >>>>>>>>>> but won't object if the authors prefer the former. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Here's a suggested wording change if you choose to keep the > >>>>>> sections: > >>>>>>>>>> OLD: > >>>>>>>>>> 8. Maximum LSP Bandwidth > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Maximum LSP bandwidth is currently advertised in the common > >>> part > >>>>>>>>>> of the ISCD and advertised per priority, while in OTN networks > >>>>>>>>>> it is only required for ODUflex advertising. This leads to a > >>>>>>>>>> significant waste of bits inside each LSA. > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> NEW > >>>>>>>>>> 8. Maximum LSP Bandwidth > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Maximum LSP bandwidth is currently advertised per priority in > >>>>>>>>>> the common part of the ISCD. Section 5 reviews some of the > >>>>>>>>>> implications of advertising OTN network information using ISCDs, > >>>>>>>>>> and identifies the need for a more optimized solution. > >>>>>>>>>> While strictly not required, such an optimization effort should > >>>>>>>>>> also consider the optimization of the per priority maximum LSP > >>>>>>>>>> bandwidth advertisement of both fixed and variable ODU types. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> OLD > >>>>>>>>>> 10. Priority Support > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage. > >>>>>>>>>> All of them have to be advertised independently on the number of > >>>>>>>>>> priorities supported by the implementation. Considering that > >>>>>>>>>> the advertisement of all the different supported signal types > >>>>>>>>>> will originate large LSAs, it is advised to advertise only the > >>>>>>>>>> information related to the really supported priorities. > >>>>>>>>>> NEW > >>>>>>>>>> 10. Priority Support > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage. > >>>>>>>>>> As defined, each is advertised independent of the number of > >>>>>>>>>> priorities supported by a network. As is the case in Section 8, > >>>>>>>>>> addressing any inefficiency with such advertisements is not > >>>>>>>>>> required to support OTN networks. But any such inefficiency > >>>>>>>>>> should also be considered as part of the optimization effort > >>>>>>>>>> identified in Section 5. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Also please replace "Bw" with "Bandwidth" in the document. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lou > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >
- [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-… Joel M. Halpern
- [CCAMP] R: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g7… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g… Daniele Ceccarelli