IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4872 (3304)

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 D3CF611E81CB for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 aJKn493h27ng for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EB611E81C5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CE332E30252; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:30:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1001E30251; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:30:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:28:20 +0200
Received: from [10.193.116.28] ([10.193.116.28]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:28:19 +0200
Message-ID: <501B0D10.5070702@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:28:16 +0200
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: France Telecom
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20120731163915.6B942621A0@rfc-editor.org> <024801cd6f84$ea1d5710$be580530$@olddog.co.uk> <A0B4FC0A5EFBD44585414760DB4FD2749F1BB256@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <03ea01cd700f$bdbdb800$39392800$@olddog.co.uk> <5019A35A.7090906@labn.net> <EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C1004F2BEDB35@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C1004F2BEDB35@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2012 23:28:19.0829 (UTC) FILETIME=[8034AA50:01CD7106]
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "jplang@ieee.org" <jplang@ieee.org>, "dbrungard@att.com" <dbrungard@att.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4872 (3304)
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, 02 Aug 2012 23:28:23 -0000

Hi Dimitri.

The initial trigger of the discussion has been resolved, but I wanted to 
comment your introspection below.

Whether it is revertive or not (as said by Zafar), LSP rerouting 
"increases recovery time" with respect to 1+1 protection, but 
*decreases* resource consumption with respect to 1+1. Thus the rationale 
for LSP rerouting at large.

Resource consumption increases only (slightly) when you compare 
non-revertive rerouting with revertive rerouting. This over-consumption 
is only true during failure time, which is not supposed to be a long 
situation. Minimizing this short-life over-consumption is usually not a 
requirement, while reversion (very) often is.

My 2 (Canadian) cents,

Julien


Le 02/08/2012 17:24, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) a écrit :
> I miss the rationales for a "scenario" that increases recovery time*and*  resource consumption.

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status