Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 3104C21E80E7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 6dUYKU1cxprQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E033021E80C1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4246; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381297043; x=1382506643; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0qlHhwg6qN+ACeqJtmwG2nRQShTQsZHnQwM7Rn5p/kg=; b=UjIzMc3SrhaYaaKS/OmkFTS8CgJi4jW5Qtfu7xeGaluDDuNDokIniYuW 2wIXdNCvsSodD2O4ANjepXz8j51v19UwKE8Yp5ZZNRh46HMt5B/G0bI9X tr+bK860Ce50UHhuHzrvK17fWBclFFfqSw7rcDNEUoL5B+PsjZUVgGFii Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFANzqVFKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwc4UsExgSQWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsXBgEIEQECAQEBCxkELgsUAwYIAQEEARIIARKHawy5MY8RAjgGgxmBBAOZMZBRgWaBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1060,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="269830901"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 05:37:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r995bMnH011939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:37:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.14]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:37:21 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: Ac6/mpvpLKMUWgFOTvGxqewIiE5jbQEWRmkQABN/2rAAHhLcgA==
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:37:21 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654FDD@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48161FF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.233.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <1CDBCC1BA6847E4683BA3A9CC3947E96@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
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, 09 Oct 2013 05:37:41 -0000

Daniele: 

The main difference between the drafts is that one is RSVP-TE signaling
based solution, while the other forces customers to deploy stateful PCE.
Calling a RSVP-TE based signaling solution that is a WG document "useless"
to force a "stateful" PCE based solution/ architecture to service
providers is very inappropriate.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "jdrake@juniper.net"
<jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes

>Thanks John for pointing that out. When I first read the draft I missed
>that point.
>
>I see two differences between the two drafts:
>1. utilization of 5ple vs Path key
>2. The path diversity draft does not say how to collect the 5ple (which
>in some cases could not be available at all), the path key draft covers
>this aspect also
>
>Re 1 I have a moderate preference for the path key for the security
>reasons that lead to the definition of the Path Key years ago and
>secondly it's simpler.
>Re 2 I don't know how the WG will manage the issue of two competing
>drafts (one wg, the other individual) but in any case it's an issue that
>need to be fixed somehow.
>
>BR
>Daniele
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Fatai Zhang
>> Sent: martedì 8 ottobre 2013 09:02
>> To: John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
>> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Totally agree with you, I already found these two drafts are much
>>*useless*.
>> 
>> This is why we made a new draft (very simple and useful) and put our
>>feet on
>> the ground.
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-
>> pathkey-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> Fatai
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of John E Drake
>> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:27 AM
>> To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
>> Subject: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
>>(RSVP-
>> TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
>> 
>> HI,
>> 
>> I was reading:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-
>> diversity/?include_text=1, and I happened to notice the following
>>paragraph:
>> 
>> "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. "
>> 
>> Doesn't this disclaimer effectively render this draft useless?  The
>>draft also
>> does not define how the node that initially signaled the LSP finds the
>>'node
>> calculating or expanding the route'  nor how it delivers the signaled
>>LSP
>> request to that node.
>> 
>> As an aside, the draft:
>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-
>> te-include-route/?include_text=1 would be subject to the same criticism
>> except that the above quoted paragraph is replaced with:
>> 
>> "The above-mentioned use cases require relevant path inclusion
>> requirements to be communicated to the route expanding nodes.  This
>> document addresses  these requirements and defines procedures to
>> address them."
>> 
>> Even though this is helpful, the draft doesn't actually define these
>> procedures.
>> 
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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