IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 15 August 2012 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 772E321F8817 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 D+Qsq6Orkqgi for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B425321F8815 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8651 invoked by uid 0); 15 Aug 2012 16:34:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2012 16:34:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=a2tqKYF8ZAEAztlPSEfEoePdaMjoTuRudr35EA3jZHw=; b=FKWeV6/M2rHAfQ4WWMcvBPWMdST7KlyL8WZ/8PGhzO0CI4NyX0SxiyuHQd2rTdCaXrtK8SOkhTQweWjGhnWtpi310sfHKAYYSxZ++xZ9rqbfqzAtu9cysB9e5MLs7ZOs;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:59634 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1T1gXx-000744-4d; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:34:17 -0600
Message-ID: <502BCF84.6090307@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:34:12 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
References: <OFFA741204.33C58679-ON48257A4F.003061FA-48257A4F.0032EA64@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFFA741204.33C58679-ON48257A4F.003061FA-48257A4F.0032EA64@zte.com.cn>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "jingrq@ctbri.com.cn" <jingrq@ctbri.com.cn>, "Robert Sawaya (rsawaya)" <rsawaya@cisco.com>, "yang.fan5@zte.com.cn" <yang.fan5@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03
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, 15 Aug 2012 16:34:40 -0000

Fei/Rakeash,
	Co-routed associated is already supported in 3473 using bidirectional
LSPs. So, to signal co-routed all that needs to be done is use the
existing procedures.  What issue is being addressed (i.e., function
being added) by adding the proposed co-routed related mechanisms?

Keep in mind, it's generally a *very* bad idea to define 2 mechanisms in
the same protocol for the same function.

Lou

On 8/3/2012 5:16 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Snipped the other parts for easy reading, sorry for the delayed response
> 
> <RG3> There are applications that require co-routed LSPs. So I think we
> should have a flag to indicate that LSPs must be co-routed, else node
> will send a path error for example if request cannot be met.  I agree
> with you about complexity with double sided provisioning model though.
> 
> <fei> Since you believe that a common mechanism used for the
> non-corouted and corouted cases is useful, we will add the texts in the
> next version.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email