Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID

Vero Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <vero.zheng@huawei.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 C238421F8778 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:34:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 EpJfIAeBwYR1 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BD121F876C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ0004N3IBCID@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:33:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ0003HMIBB1U@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:33:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGW99114; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:33:12 +0800
Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:32:42 +0800
Received: from SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.252]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:33:01 +0800
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:33:00 +0000
From: Vero Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <OF1704EF1D.4331DC07-ON48257999.004E3587-48257999.00502E06@zte.com.cn>
X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.103]
To: "zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn" <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
Message-id: <2EEA459CD95CCB4988BFAFC0F2287B5C25917498@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Hqbbv9DYCFbbkXIyMQPXow)"
Content-language: zh-CN
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID
Thread-index: AQHM3mtgdwQeGuDdLkSXNBeKNfMIpJYq8dIA///NegCABkxR4A==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <2EEA459CD95CCB4988BFAFC0F2287B5C25916F41@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <OF1704EF1D.4331DC07-ON48257999.004E3587-48257999.00502E06@zte.com.cn>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:34:30 -0000

Fei,

Please see in-line.

BR,
Vero

Fei,

you wrote:

First,
"2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ccamp-mpls-tp-oio-01

The Global_ID Object and the ICC_Operator_ID Object are defined in this draft,  which describes the procedure of corouted bidirectional LSP (associated bidirectional LSP is not covered in the current version) and requires that the same format( Global_ID or ICC_Operator_ID)is used along the LSP.

Which is not true. The Object we defined could be carried in both Path/Resv message, and is not restricted either to co-routed bi-directional LSP or associated bi-directional LSP.

<fei>
Although either co-routed or associated bidirectional LSP is not mentioned in this draft , according to  the descripition in section 2.3, " If the node agrees, it MUST use the same format of Operator ID.  The same C-Type of OIO MUST be carried in the Resv message", which means that  the procedure is for corouted bidrectional LSP.
The above is just my understanding and provided for discussion, and if it is wrong or inaccurate, please let me know.
</fei>
The procedure described above aims to guarantee the sender and the receiver using the same C-Type of the object, i.e. both end using Global_ID or both using ICC_Operator_ID.

Second,
3. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-01

The Global_ID is carried as a TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object, which will appear in the Path/Resv message of corouted bidrectional LSP and only appear in the Path message of associated bidirectional LSP. Furthermore, this draft defined a Connection TLV used to carry the local tunnel number assigned at Z9 nodes in the scenario of corouted bidirectional LSP.

Why "tunnel number" is carried in the Connection TLV? I don't see its necessary for both co-route/ associated bi-directional LSP. Could you explain?

<fei>
As I said, it is useful for corouted (not associated) bidirectional LSP,  consider that there is one LSP (LSP1, initiated at node A) between node A/Z.
If the CC-V pakcet is  sent from  node Z, the MEP_ID of node Z will be inserted in the OAM packets, which is organized by node_ID::tunnel_num::LSP_num
(section 5.2.1 or 7.2.2 of RFC6370), and if this MEP_ID is not pre-stored at node A, it can not judge whether this MEP_ID is valid. See the description in section 5.1.1.2
 (Mis-Connectivity Defect) of RFC6371.
                   LSP1
A-------------------------------Z


</fei>
Why is tunnel number not known by node A? The tunnel number should has been carried in Session and Sender Template/Filter Spec object and exchanged by node A and node Z during the LSP set-up. Correct me if I am wrong.

BR,
Vero

Thanks.

Vero


From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:50 PM
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] Discussion on how to carry the Global_ID


Hi CCAMPers

As discussed in the last IETF meeting and mailinglist, the Global_ID should be carried in the signaling messages. One reason is that the judgement of a mis-connectivity defect needs the A1/Z9 nodes to pre-store each other's MEP_ID, whose format is: Gobal_ID+Node_ID+Tunnel_num+LSP_num.

Fortunately, there are several drafts related to this topic now,

1.  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-01.

The Globa_ID is incorporated into the ASSOCIATION object in the current version, which guarantees that the association is global unique. Since the ASSOCIATION object is used across different LSPs, just my2cents, the defined format is deficient to handle more scenarios. For example:

   (1) Considering a corouted bidirectional LSP, which is not protected by other LSPs through control plane and/or does not share the same resoures with other LSPs. In these cases, the ASSOCIATION object will not be carried in the sigaling messages.

   (2) Considering an associated bidirectional LSP, although the ASSOCIATION object is carried in the sigaling messages, the global_ID incorporated in the ASSOCIATION object only
indicates the global prefix of the A1 or Z9 nodes. If this LSP is across different domains, I think the current format is also deficient (A1 does not know the gobal ID of Z9 node or Z9 nodes does not know the global ID of A1 ).

2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ccamp-mpls-tp-oio-01

The Global_ID Object and the ICC_Operator_ID Object are defined in this draft,  which describes the procedure of corouted bidirectional LSP (associated bidirectional LSP is not covered in the current version) and requires that the same format( Global_ID or ICC_Operator_ID)is used along the LSP.

3. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-01

The Global_ID is carried as a TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object, which will appear in the Path/Resv message of corouted bidrectional LSP and only appear in the Path message of associated bidirectional LSP. Furthermore, this draft defined a Connection TLV used to carry the local tunnel number assigned at Z9 nodes in the scenario of corouted bidirectional LSP.


The above materials only provide the rough background.


Hope to hear the opinions from the WG that how to carry the Global_ID, then move the work forward.


Best regards

;)

Fei