Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Hi Attila, all

That is the critical problem we need to solve next step. :-)

Yeah, Lou have the similar comments in Beijing, but there are not enough 
discussion on the mailinglist. Since every provisioning mode is possible 
"in theory" ,and in order to be convenient for discussion, I list both of 
them in the document currently. 

If we consider the pracitical deployment, and have an agreement that only 
double sided provisioining model is useful after the discussion, the 
single sided provisioning model will be deleted.

Best regards

Fei

:) 

Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com> 
发件人:  ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
2011-04-15 01:06

收件人
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
抄送
"ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
主题
Re: [CCAMP] poll        on      making 
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a      WG      document

Hi Lou, all,
It would be nice to clarify the scope of the proposed extension. 
I would say (a) if that does not include commitment to work on the "single 
sided mode". To my current understanding that operation mode is not 
required for associated bidirectional LSPs. There is no discussion in the 
document about which operation mode is really needed, if I'm not mistaken 
similar comments were raised in Beijing, but this is not addressed in the 
document. Hence my confusion.
Thanks,
Attila

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making 
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Attila,
                 So I appreciate your comment, and would like to have this 
discussion, but I think I need some clarification from the perspective of 
the poll.
 I'm unsure if you're saying:
(a) support this document becoming a WG document and would like
    discuss the point raised below in the context of a WG document or
(b) do NOT support this document becoming a WG document until the
    point you raise becomes a WG document

Can you clarify if you mean (a) or (b)?

Lou

On 4/12/2011 4:27 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
> Hi authors,
> 
> You talk about two provisioning models: "single" and "double" sided 
modes. 
> 
> Double sided is clear, it uses independent signaling for the two LSPs. 
> 
> Single sided, if I understood correctly, somehow binds the two LSP 
signaling phases together. I have some doubts that this model is needed. 
It seems to complicate operation and it also begs the question why not use 
bidirectional LSPs instead. 
> 
> I think two independently signaled LSPs with the addition of the 
proposed Association object would do the job addressing the associated 
bidirectional LSP requirements, so that transit nodes are also aware of 
the binding.
> 
> Best regards,
> Attila
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:24 AM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making 
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working group 
document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical 
reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday April 15.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp