IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 15 August 2012 17:10 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 C9BAA21F8740 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 DFYWxVT6SSyO for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1601B21F8733 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13978 invoked by uid 0); 15 Aug 2012 17:09:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2012 17:09:54 -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:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=VUK8UoNK6WhgrMoQ2rDGmLpwEOVgXkRZo66kLzW1T/w=; b=docwGBdMX8zUmD+GzzUWPl2uXiclsWePv/cgOjrMc0DvEP6rZ+anbeXhl0yCdl4APl+RVVb4WeLv28U+v6XSl0cXSpGMAcK9ZrYEDWlNxrIoVeE0hVW7uD2T+14INTcb;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:35082 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1T1h6Q-0003W9-H6; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:09:54 -0600
Message-ID: <502BD7DE.2020100@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:09:50 -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: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
References: <OFFA741204.33C58679-ON48257A4F.003061FA-48257A4F.0032EA64@zte.com.cn> <502BCF84.6090307@labn.net> <B7D2A316AA32B6469D9670B6A81B7C2406C285@xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B7D2A316AA32B6469D9670B6A81B7C2406C285@xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com>
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>, "jingrq@ctbri.com.cn" <jingrq@ctbri.com.cn>, "Robert Sawaya (rsawaya)" <rsawaya@cisco.com>, "yang.fan5@zte.com.cn" <yang.fan5@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03
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, 15 Aug 2012 17:10:19 -0000

Rakesh,
	Agreed.  I sent this mail before realizing the full scope of the
discussion/proposed changes.  I'll look to your (the) new thread to
resolve this comment.

Thanks,
Lou

On 8/15/2012 1:06 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> As you indicated in another email,  it will be easier to start with a new email thread or perhaps a presentation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:34 PM
> To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
> Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi); Robert Sawaya (rsawaya); yang.fan5@zte.com.cn; CCAMP; jingrq@ctbri.com.cn
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-03
> 
> Fei/Rakeash,
> 	Co-routed associated is already supported in 3473 using bidirectional LSPs. So, to signal co-routed all that needs to be done is use the existing procedures.  What issue is being addressed (i.e., function being added) by adding the proposed co-routed related mechanisms?
> 
> Keep in mind, it's generally a *very* bad idea to define 2 mechanisms in the same protocol for the same function.
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 8/3/2012 5:16 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote:
>> Snipped the other parts for easy reading, sorry for the delayed 
>> response
>>
>> <RG3> There are applications that require co-routed LSPs. So I think 
>> we should have a flag to indicate that LSPs must be co-routed, else 
>> node will send a path error for example if request cannot be met.  I 
>> agree with you about complexity with double sided provisioning model though.
>>
>> <fei> Since you believe that a common mechanism used for the 
>> non-corouted and corouted cases is useful, we will add the texts in 
>> the next version.
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email