IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Tue, 08 October 2013 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.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 3415521F9831 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 fZ3eR8RDZ198 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F75421F9967 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail152-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.241) by CO1EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.243.66.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:53 +0000
Received: from mail152-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail152-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D12180082; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz9371I542Iec9I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h186068h8275dhz2fh2a8h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail152-co1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(37854004)(199002)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(51704005)(74662001)(69226001)(65816001)(74502001)(74316001)(47446002)(31966008)(46102001)(79102001)(76796001)(85306002)(76482001)(15202345003)(53806001)(50986001)(19580395003)(76786001)(74706001)(54356001)(76576001)(15975445006)(80022001)(81816001)(56816003)(47976001)(47736001)(59766001)(83072001)(74876001)(33646001)(56776001)(81686001)(54316002)(74366001)(77096001)(80976001)(81542001)(66066001)(77982001)(4396001)(51856001)(81342001)(19580405001)(63696002)(49866001)(83322001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB143; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.36; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail152-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail152-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1381272051961321_2790; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS029.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.228]) by mail152-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66E310004D; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CO1EHSMHS029.bigfish.com (10.243.66.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:51 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:29 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.9; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:27 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.177]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.115]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.005; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:40:27 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: AQHOw/RvMrBCr56VuU2xebXAhUabxpnrZsRg
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:40:26 +0000
Message-ID: <5e37de0c93a74f7393262538b623aa79@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <a7a636bf5b6942a8b74ebf2c71a3212f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA77C4B@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.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:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.36]
x-forefront-prvs: 0993689CD1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
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 22:41:03 -0000

And a very nice draft it is.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:02 AM
> To: John E Drake; CCAMP (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-
> pathkey-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_text=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/?include_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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email