Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Tue, 08 October 2013 17:47 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 EFA0811E810C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=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 BDcbCUJWqfC1 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9247E11E81BA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381254445; x=1382464045; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sbPmmmtfHXpcPWsRB+xpqXg9uRTRwryHKcc+s+HCj50=; b=YSlRH3u3OPK/axNQExJ2WKCt4R1Fdy8P4xa7A8F3TuhXvRhuCXNNxFc8 Be1gzOo9sudMbWHtyzTwHme3riFMyQ1H0DuKy3y8EFqvYKubebi948dKC pGCjl5d9EarjtiHrXS6naUfp8/fDMaW9mJot24ahTiy6ROCAKZNwxbnlL w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAAlEVFKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4UsElgSIWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsXBgEIEQMBAQELGQQuCxQJCAEBBAESCAESh2sMunOPETgGgxmBBAOZMJBRgWaBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1057,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="269596409"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2013 17:47:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r98HlPpe032028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:47:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.14]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:47:24 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: Ac6/mpvpLKMUWgFOTvGxqewIiE5jbQEWRmkQABjHHYA=
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:47:23 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654931@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA77C4B@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: [10.82.235.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <1305E8690807D9448CD1E350ACE236F6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:47:31 -0000
Fatai and all- In a stateless PCE, Path Keys are transient and they expire. For this solution to work you need a PCE that can keep Paths associated with a Path Key around (a stateful PCE where states are path computed by the PCE). Thanks Regards Š Zafar -----Original Message----- From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:01 AM To: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes >Hi John, > >Totally agree with you, I already found these two drafts are much >*useless*. > >This is why we made a new draft (very simple and useful) and put our feet >on the ground. > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-path >key-00.txt > > > > >Best Regards > >Fatai > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >John E Drake >Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:27 AM >To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) >Subject: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering >(RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > >HI, > >I was reading: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity/?include_te >xt=1, and I happened to notice the following paragraph: > >"The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of the >signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the signaled >LSP > requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document. " > >Doesn't this disclaimer effectively render this draft useless? The draft >also does not define how the node that initially signaled the LSP finds >the 'node calculating >or expanding the route' nor how it delivers the signaled LSP request to >that node. > >As an aside, the draft: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route/?inc >lude_text=1 would be subject to the same criticism >except that the above quoted paragraph is replaced with: > >"The above-mentioned use cases require relevant path inclusion >requirements to be communicated to the route expanding nodes. This >document addresses > these requirements and defines procedures to address them." > >Even though this is helpful, the draft doesn't actually define these >procedures. > >Yours Irrespectively, > >John > > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Eng… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake