Re: [CCAMP] Signaling extensions for FA-LSPs (comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01)

Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 01:29 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.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 6354211E80B5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:29:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Xnow83z7d2Yb for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7164911E809D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ000FF61HL0T@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:29:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ000ATE1GQQI@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:29:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGW58076; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:29:45 +0800
Received: from SZXEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.163) by szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:29:06 +0800
Received: from SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.252]) by szxeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.163]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:29:38 +0800
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:29:36 +0000
From: Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <B3B6FD81D3159A45B5421AF9DD500F8846DE20CE@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
X-Originating-IP: [10.70.76.157]
To: Ben Wright <Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Message-id: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CF76C6@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_kXsp6cxyN7CMW7E3IwRZ5Q)"
Content-language: en-US
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: Signaling extensions for FA-LSPs (comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01)
Thread-index: Aczk8YJ2S9X0jt8bQEec+MWkSS9DMgARXJOQ
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <B3B6FD81D3159A45B5421AF9DD500F8846DE20CE@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Signaling extensions for FA-LSPs (comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01)
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, 07 Feb 2012 01:29:54 -0000

Hi Ben,

I agreed with the scenario and requirement you mentioned.

However, I think it is a kind of generic MLN scenario, not just specific to OTN signaling, so I was trying to capture this in a generic way and documented this in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt.

Please review this draft (draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt) to see if this draft can address your concern.

Let¡¯s discuss more on this issue.



Thanks

Fatai

From: Ben Wright [mailto:Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 2012Äê2ÔÂ7ÈÕ 1:05
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Signaling extensions for FA-LSPs (comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01)

Hi Fatai et al,

We have been thinking about function we will need to add to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01 to fully support automatically provisioned FA-LSPs.   I wanted to see whether you agree with our analysis.

We think that the RSVP-TE signalling should be extended to carry more information in order to allow other nodes on the signalling path to set up the correct FA-LSP.    For example, in the network in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01#section-7, we believe that N1 should be able to prescribe to N2 the set of hops that it should use to set up the ODU2 FA-LSP, and the signal type of the FA-LSP it should set up, and (probably) the multiplexing hierarchy to be used at either end.   Typically, we¡¯d expect N1 would want to explicitly prevent N2 from querying routing to set up the FA-LSP  ¨C otherwise, a routing calculation triggered by N2 could compute a path for the FA-LSP inconsistent with N1¡¯s intentions (e.g. which could break some SRLG diversity requirement).

What do you think?   Is this an issue that you anticipate addressing in the text for section 7.1 (alluded to as being for future study)?

Thanks,

Ben Wright and Steve Balls