IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> Sat, 08 February 2014 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ggrammel@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7621A051A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y1bLn4DOuQhf for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ECD1A04C8 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail87-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.232) by TX2EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.9.40.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:33 +0000
Received: from mail87-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462594A052B; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -18
X-BigFish: VPS-18(zzc85fhzz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h22d0h2336h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail87-tx2: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=ggrammel@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(199002)(189002)(76796001)(80022001)(66066001)(65816001)(76482001)(56776001)(79102001)(63696002)(74876001)(77096001)(76576001)(76786001)(83072002)(81686001)(31966008)(81816001)(74662001)(47446002)(74502001)(94946001)(94316002)(86362001)(51856001)(93516002)(46102001)(33646001)(93136001)(16236675002)(54356001)(59766001)(77982001)(53806001)(54316002)(92566001)(95416001)(15975445006)(74706001)(50986001)(4396001)(47976001)(47736001)(49866001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83322001)(87266001)(19300405004)(15202345003)(74316001)(85306002)(80976001)(87936001)(2656002)(69226001)(74366001)(81342001)(81542001)(85852003)(56816005)(90146001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB041; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:193.110.55.11; FPR:7CD9E854.2FFAD739.2E3F3CC.40EE817D.20243; InfoNoRecordsA:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail87-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 139181811195503_14943; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.231]) by mail87-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AB9420076; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (10.9.99.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:30 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.411.0; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:29 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:22 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.203]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.16]) with mapi id 15.00.0868.013; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:22 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03
Thread-Index: Ac8jdtO/9HhKhzV1QvabPhbP4TmBNQA4q05A
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:08:21 +0000
Message-ID: <274efc1365674501ad939e40d6d7f8ce@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C1385F8@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C1385F8@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.11]
x-forefront-prvs: 01165471DB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_274efc1365674501ad939e40d6d7f8ceBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:08:38 -0000

Hi Deborah,

I don't think we should progress this draft at this point. The WG decided that "operating without the PCE is still in the scope of this WG." .Yet the document doesn't look into this aspect: "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."
How can the WG know that a network operated without a PCE is able to process the signaling and whether the proposed extensions are complete?

So before rushing into protocol extensions, it would be wise to focus on a framework or applicability statement carving out what needs to be added to existing work in IETF for the use case described. This would bring clarity as to whether route calculation and expansion can be performed and how.


Best

Gert


From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: 06 February 2014 21:06
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03

All,

This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03.

This working group last call ends Feb. 20th. Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

Deborah and Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email