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
- [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Eng… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake