Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 12:33 UTC
Return-Path: <acee.lindem@ericsson.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 6C17711E813F; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzZU7uLn4uVZ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3AB11E80D0; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p5MCXmuC015377; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:33:49 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.54]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:33:46 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:33:43 -0400
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
Thread-Index: Acww2KCuvMDjk+drTuenSoxLMCxaWQ==
Message-ID: <EC528F7E-3D1B-4872-911D-58340D4349A3@ericsson.com>
References: <BANLkTimtJPOO+-atPS=YvkngZd2dmX-W6w@mail.gmail.com> <A04F4AB9-8D0B-4EBC-B69E-06ACD6B49697@ericsson.com> <BANLkTim7C4b3CGkpwSoA6Aro=OX4ZXNZgw@mail.gmail.com> <9AA9A2E7-ECDC-4FF0-A1B0-00808617D764@ericsson.com> <BANLkTinCKqk+LM+J6=1quLYuHuYHLx6Daw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinCKqk+LM+J6=1quLYuHuYHLx6Daw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:33:53 -0000
Hi Alia, On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Acee, > > I do agree that we should explicitly document this in the draft & work > on better names for the sub-TLVs that might be confused. Note that it may be the it may be the names in the Y.1540/Y.1541 TE latency draft that need further qualification since their definitions are more strictly scoped. Anyway, lets see how the discussion on where this should be done proceeds. > I also agree that we need to give the decision explicit consideration; > to give this the exposure necessary and consideration for > applications was why we had this draft discussed in rtgwg as well as ospf. Great - I think we are in agreement. I'm not adamantly opposed to doing TE independently for applications falling into this category - I just think we should have the discussion Lou is proposing. Thanks, Acee > > In addition to the obvious uses for RSVP-TE, another potential > application is the idea of a path-weighted ECMP, where traffic is > split to the different next-hops based upon the total path bandwidths > out those next-hops. This is a pure IP application (LDP follows > of course) and I'd prefer not to lose track of those options when > considering the RSVP-TE applications. > > Alia > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote: >> Hi Alia, >> I guess I agree with Lou - heretofore, we've done TE requirements in the MPLS/CCAMP WGs and the TE encodings in the IGP WGs. I think we should give the decision explicit consideration before we branch off and do TE for application X independently. Additionally, if we do decide to split this off independently, an E-mail to the list saying there is no overlap is not sufficient to move forward. At a minimum, I believe we need to: >> >> 1. Explicitly document this alternate applicability and relationship to existing TE in the draft. >> 2. Determine whether any sub-TLVs can be shared (my opinion was consistent with yours that there are not due to differences in requirements and measurement). >> 3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion between the latency applications. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >>> Hi Acee, >>> >>> John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. It >>> had a large number of requirements and extensions to >>> a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) that >>> appears the same - but the expectations >>> as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different. >>> >>> The OSPF TE Express Path work is fairly self-contained and doesn't >>> specify in exact detail how the information >>> for the sub-TLVs is measured or obtained. I think it could be used >>> for multiple purposes. >>> >>> Alia >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well), >>>> >>>> Here is a link for everyone's convenience: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt >>>> >>>> At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP drafts containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub-TLVs. Have you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is positioned versus these other drafts? While these applications have differing goals, the CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be done. >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt >>>> >>>> We would like to avoid having exactly the same information advertised in two different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on common units. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express Path >>>>> draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on feedback >>>>> from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main >>>>> changes include: >>>>> >>>>> -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no >>>>> longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The >>>>> functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal performance >>>>> for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we used >>>>> to have four). >>>>> >>>>> -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network performance >>>>> state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) but >>>>> has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the measured >>>>> value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A bit >>>>> is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured reuse >>>>> threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady state >>>>> link performance. >>>>> >>>>> -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point to >>>>> fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when >>>>> necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it >>>>> permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the draft. >>>>> In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity and >>>>> interoperability. >>>>> >>>>> -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth. >>>>> Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus >>>>> the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available bandwidth >>>>> is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used >>>>> for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. >>>>> >>>>> -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These >>>>> include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, the >>>>> thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions. >>>>> >>>>> -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the draft >>>>> >>>>> We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>> >> >>
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Acee Lindem
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Acee Lindem
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Alia Atlas
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Acee Lindem
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Acee Lindem
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Spencer Giacalone
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Vishwas Manral
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Vishwas Manral
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua