IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 13 November 2013 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 0AB7011E8117 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:53:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 oYdwmOjTUpTJ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A29911E8103 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:52:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4133; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384325569; x=1385535169; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=OK4aWirYUfgWzrqhzikYqqU4dsMibIT4k+Kjlbsz/h0=; b=DT8I9XGVIrNYzyZ8tfNGqpMOj8gaS1D7gHAH31fLbhV9f33vnDDe/dxj /245n16PsWnLbznSh+4ht0jLQ6psXMwJrfbbuBfKZkQvK5zWwzipfSGoB vrFsbSLxfBgfAocXN9TOTxoVmkIHwwtam+Otru3qA/rOHl78I05UOEVa6 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwFACghg1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO2Z4hEgRoWdIIlAQIEeRIBCAQNAwECKDkUCQgCBAENBYgBDb8Tj04RB4QxA5gQgS+QXIMogio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,690,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="284119126"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2013 06:52:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAD6qhtI022765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:52:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.50]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:52:42 -0600
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
Thread-Index: AQHO39pcEXyVtzYbsE+dGnvLlU1JdJoizckA///1soCAAFjWAP//rrqA
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:52:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA88B14.8326F%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA8C650@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.238.82]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEA88B148326Fzaliciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
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, 13 Nov 2013 06:53:05 -0000

From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com<mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:43 AM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com>>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

The operator can just click a button to configure it, otherwise how the ingress knows what to tell the egress.

This will require operator to apply configurations on both ingress and egress. Applying a matching configuration for a connection that does not exists at egress is not feasible. If we go with your logic, we don't need similar extensions that are already RFCs, e.g., http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6107.

Thanks

Regards…Zafar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email