Re: [CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01

["Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[e-mail]>]

Alan,

Apologies for the delay in responding on this one. Inline:

I suggest replacing the following paragraph in section 4.1

   "Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the tail node
   adds an SRLG sub-object to the RRO.  The collected SRLG information
   can be carried in the SRLG sub-object.  Therefore, during the
   forwarding of the Resv message in the upstream direction, the SRLG
   information is not needed to be collected hop by hop."

With the paragraph

"As in the procedures defined for the processing of RROs in Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the processing of SRLG collection for Resv messages mirrors that of the Path messages.  That is, each intermediate node adds an SRLG sub-object to the RRO."

When you say, "the processing... mirrors..." I presume you mean that the internal logic will be similar, rather than that the same values will be placed into the Resv RRO as went into the Path RRO?

Anyway, yes, I agree with the principle that the SRLGs in the Resv RRO should also be collected hop-by-hop rather than copied over from the Path RRO at the tail.

Cheers

Matt

The benefits of this approach are that

-          the SRLG information received by the head and tail nodes is consistent
-          no information is lost when the SRLG information is collected in the Resv, it still includes a hop to SRLG mapping.

Regards

Alan Davey

Network Technologies
Metaswitch Networks

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
[phone]
network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: 03 December 2012 17:36
To: Alan Davey; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01

Alan-

There are use cases where SRLGs for forward direction may not be same as SRLGs for reverse direction. E.g., consider a use case where an associated non-corouted tunnel is used as an FA; forward and reverse directions may follow different paths in the network. When such FA is used as a TE link for the tunnel for which SRLG recording is requested, forward and reverse SRLG values would be different.

Thanks

Regards...Zafar

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alan Davey
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:23 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [CCAMP] A question on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01

Authors

I have a doubt about draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01, specifically about the SRLG collection.  Could you please let me know what you think?

According to section 4.1, the collection of SRLG information in RROs for the Resv is different to that for the Path.  This is unlike the existing processing of RROs, which are handled in the same way for the upstream and downstream directions (as defined in RFC3209 section 4.4.3).  Can you please explain why the collection of SRLGs must be different in the different directions?  My preference is that SRLG information collection in RROs is handled in the same way as existing RRO processing.

Regards

Alan Davey


Network Technologies
Metaswitch Networks

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
[phone]
network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>