[CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 11 August 2011 14:04 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 DCCDF21F8570 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.773, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nVmhw+H33t83 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com (unknown [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 118DE21F854E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13474 invoked by uid 0); 11 Aug 2011 14:05:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2011 14:05:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=tUY8AQoWE6ec6XSxu1ZhK2YvWbAtuZZPfqshsoQ2Hts=; b=GLE7QhPrG5gCS1ag1RUbQ7IzlDLcbLAsRgzCFnmSsrdN+TcGB6NshdycmJwCQyLp1ioLa5nb5Plx88KlGO6PSudc6bf8X6bXvn/+BrsO0MbBR7nbhHuYiklxi2deTn41;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1QrVsl-0000G8-Im; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:05:11 -0600
Message-ID: <4E43E197.5000804@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:05:11 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
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: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:04:40 -0000
Authors, Good progress on the draft so far. In looking at the previous mail, I noticed a few things in the draft that I think could improve the clarity of the draft. Note that a bunch of these comments are style in nature, not technical. Also comments are made as a WG contributor, not chair. Some general comments: - There is no/little conformance language related to the Single Sided Provisioning. This is a huge hole in the draft. - As mentioned in my previous mail, backwards compatibility needs to be address - How are you thinking about providing the ERO (and perhaps RRO?) for the reverse LSP when using Single Sided Provisioning? (Keep in mind we already have EROs/RROs and SEROs/SRROs, it would be good to figure out if these can be leveraged.) - How does 4872/3 style recovery work for the reverse LSP? - You introduce the new, and somewhat confusing, term: "Two Reverse Unidirectional LSPs". TP already has a term for this, i.e., "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". I think the document should just use this established term. For the following I'm using line numbers found via http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.txt Line 1: The document is in ccamp not mpls. Line 8: "Establish Associated Bidirectional LSP". Presumably, this also will cover more than just establishment, so perhaps replace "to Establish" with "For" and "LSP" with "LSPs". Lines 132/134: The section is titled association .. of LSPs, but the first topic is provision models and it certainly covers more than association. Perhaps the title should be something more general, even "Associated Bidirectional LSPs", or "Overview". Section 3. As this section is a narrative, the very few instances of RFC2119 language seems out of place, i.e., belongs in section 4 and 5 and should be moved or removed. Section 3.2.2. I think this is really overly complex and likely to lead to the same issues and confusion we've seen in e2e recovery. Is there any reason not to keep it simple and say something along the lines of "the values used in the ASSOCIATION object are outside the scope of this document. For example they may be communicated via the management plane. No matter how the values are communicate, identification of the LSPs as being Associated Bidirectional LSPs occurs based on the identical contents in the LSPs' ASSOCIATION objects" Section 3.3: doesn't cover recovery of LSP2. Line 437: Suggest renaming to "Association of LSPs". Section 4: I think this is where any discussion of Association object modifications, procedures, and conformance language should be consolidated. Lines 443-529: In general, one document should not repeat the format from another for informational purposes, so most of these lines should be dropped. All you need is a statement to the affect that the Extended ASSOCIATION object is defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] MUST be used. Line 496: Should use the standard term "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". Lines 498-500: This sentence relates to nodes that do *not* implement this draft, as such is way outside the scope of the document and must be removed. Lines 507-509, 523-529: In general I think it is a mistake to proscribe use of LSP or tunnel IDs as association IDs. Using the assoc-ext rules, it isn't an interoperability concern, and such usage leads to the confusion/issues covered in the assoc-info draft. I think the 4872 definition is sufficient for Association ID and assoc-ext is sufficient for Extended Association ID. Section 5: Suggest renaming "Single Sided Provisioning" and including all the related modifications, procedures, and conformance language in this section. Topics to be covered include, in no particular order: - LSP Control (Establishment, teardown, modification including MBB. Don't forget about the attributes and admin status objects -- maybe there's a generic approach that can be followed, e.g., a REVERSE_LSP object that carries objects for use by the reverse LSP - Symmetric and Asymmetric BW (If not covered under a generic approach) Explicit control of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) - Record route of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) - Recovery (If not covered under a generic approach) - Compatibility - Updated RSVP Message Formats (as needed) Lou