Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Thu, 10 October 2013 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 070B821F9E39 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.781
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 FLhRrEtBYeig for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26F321F9D92 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail218-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.229) by CH1EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.43.70.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:24 +0000
Received: from mail218-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail218-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD86601AD; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz9371I542Iec9I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz8275ch1de098h1033IL1de097h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail218-ch1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(37854004)(377454003)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(13464003)(69226001)(49866001)(47736001)(50986001)(47976001)(74706001)(83072001)(76576001)(81542001)(76786001)(76796001)(74316001)(33646001)(77096001)(56816003)(81342001)(54356001)(46102001)(53806001)(51856001)(74662001)(4396001)(83322001)(74502001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(47446002)(80976001)(31966008)(76482001)(81686001)(65816001)(56776001)(54316002)(85306002)(59766001)(74876001)(81816001)(80022001)(66066001)(63696002)(79102001)(74366001)(77982001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB144; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.53; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail218-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail218-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 138142430311996_22833; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.229]) by mail218-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F132F3E020B; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CH1EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.43.70.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:21 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB144.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.147) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:20 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB144.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.9; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:18 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.177]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.115]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.005; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:18 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: AQHOw/RvMrBCr56VuU2xebXAhUabxpnrFPqAgABNoZCAAHWXAIAACg2AgAABTICAAAF+AIAACo+AgAAJaICAAAhlAIAAvOIggAAwzwCAATq90A==
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:17 +0000
Message-ID: <fc38b137142e4f1691508eac37bbf9c2@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <0ace45976a434fb0b096b5f084c14756@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F65641E@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F65641E@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53]
x-forefront-prvs: 0995196AA2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:34 -0000

Zafar,

Comments inline.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 3:04 PM
> To: John E Drake; Fatai Zhang; Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
> 
> John:
> 
> Scope of the draft is to define UNI-C and the problem you are hanged on
> beyond the scope of UNI-C and that aspect is clear stated in the draft.

[JD]  This is incorrect.  You go to great pains to claim that your draft has general applicability and is not restricted only to UNI.

> Furthermore, I cited two deployment use cases one of which is based on
> distributed path computation and other does not require single omniscient
> entity.

[JD]  As I noted in the email I sent on Tuesday:  "In order to allow the ingress node at the edge of an abstract node to expand the explicit route and provide a disjoint route will require that each such ingress node has complete knowledge of the RSVP-TE explicit route and identifier of every LSP transiting that abstract node."

For you consideration:

Com.nis.cient (m-nshnt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.


> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards Š Zafar
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>
> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 3:14 PM
> To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>,
> "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org"
> <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
> 
> >Zafar,
> >
> >Snipped, comment inline.
> >
> >Yours Irrespectively,
> >
> >John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 12:54 AM
> >> To: Fatai Zhang; Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
> >> Cc: John E Drake
> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
> >> Engineering
> >> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
> >>
> >> Fatai and John:
> >>
> >> In most of the cases, when the UNI-N node computing the path is also
> >>hosting the RSVP-TE FEC against which exclusion is required, it knows
> >>the  path take by the other LSP. For the other cases, please note that
> >>just  because optical network is running GMPLS UNI for client
> >>interface does not  mean that it is running RSVP-TE for the optical
> >>trail management. E.g., optical  trail management can still using an
> >>already deployed proprietary mechanisms  or an NMS based scheme. The
> >>draft is addressing schemes that are capable  of this functionality.
> >
> >[JD]  So, you are finally admitting that despite what your draft
> >currently states, your draft only works If the server network is
> >controlled by a single omniscient entity.  As I said before, this is
> >useless.
> >
> 
>