Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Wed, 18 April 2012 08:04 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 F1AAD21F85FD; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.721, BAYES_00=-2.599, FR_3TAG_3TAG=1.758, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, 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 r46kV7eubR40; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1261021F85F2; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 286201461793122; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:24:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 96035.3565597523; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:03:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q3I83Ssx058509; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:03:28 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927247A7792@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 98D20FE1:63AABD61-482579E4:002AE39F; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF98D20FE1.63AABD61-ON482579E4.002AE39F-482579E4.002C40B8@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:03:24 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-04-18 16:03:30, Serialize complete at 2012-04-18 16:03:30
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002C40B2482579E4_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q3I83Ssx058509
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb
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, 18 Apr 2012 08:04:07 -0000
Jie See my2cents lined with <fei></fei> Best Fei Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org 2012-04-18 09:47 收件人 Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 抄送 "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> 主题 Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb Lou, Thanks for your prompt reply. Please see inline. > I think you may have missed my reference. Take a look at section 13 of > RFC 4872. I suspect you'll find the flags defined there to be a better > match. Thanks for pointing to this. Actually I looked at RFC 4872 first. While I agree lockout in RFC 4872 and lock instruct look similar, IMO there are still some differences. Section 13 of RFC 4872 talks about commands to influence recovery operations. The lockout command is used to force the recovery LSP unavailable to transport traffic (either normal or extra-traffic). It is only applicable to the recovery LSP with particular protection type. While IMO Lock Instruct is a general operation to an LSP, which can be either a working LSP or a recovery LSP, and with no constraint on the protection type. <fei> According to my understanding, the function of lock is to put the transport path into temporal unavialable state, which SHOULD be applicable to either recovery or working transport paths. Although the usage of "L" bit in RFC4872 is just like what you said, which can be updated to cover more scenarios. </fei> > > > > This capability of sending notification to a targeted node is what > > Loopback needs. And then we followed the mechanism defined in RFC4974 > > for calls. The extension needed is a new flag in ADMIN_STATUS > > object. > > > > In my understanding, ERO/SERO could achieve identification and > > configuration of a targeted node, by defining new ERO subobjects. For > > Loopback such extension may be more significant than just defining a > > new flag in an existing object. But if a new subobject is to be > > defined for several related functions, this may be an interesting > > topic to have further discussions. > > I believe that Cyril said he'd take a pass at such a document (somewhat > based on/similar to draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00). Why > don't we wait and see what comes of that before discussing this further. Sounds good. Would like to see discussions and progress on that. Many thanks, Jie _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-t… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… zhang.fei3
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Francesco Fondelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Jie Dong
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Mach Chen
- Re: [CCAMP] Discussions about draft-dong-ccamp-rs… Jie Dong