[CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kpithewan@infinera.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3143911E81F7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id snzJB+wON24M for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D94621F9CFB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:25:20 -0700
From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>
To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbA==
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:25:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD05A8@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD05A8SVEXDBPROD1infi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
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, 30 Jul 2013 14:26:02 -0000


The draft relies on ability to setup GMPLS lsp without committing resources in dataplane.

Only reference I found to setup pre-planned GMPLS is in RFC 6001.

The green highlighted part says it is not possible to support 0 bandwidth lsp for TDM/LSC network. While red part alludes that it can be done.

Also I couldn' locate the text in any RFC that describes the NULL label behavior in GMPLS context.

RFC6001 5.2.2 says


However, mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) a TDM or
   LSC LSP with 0 bandwidth is currently not possible because the
   exchanged label value is tightly coupled with resource allocation
   during LSP signaling (e.g., see [RFC4606] for a SONET/SDH LSP).  For
   TDM and LSC LSP, a NULL Label value is used to prevent resource
   allocation at the data plane level.  In these cases, upon LSP
   resource commitment, actual label value exchange is performed to
   commit allocation of timeslots/ wavelengths.