Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Tue, 25 February 2014 00:34 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B871A0238; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zvt8ETdDWGfY; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:34:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE341A0200; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:34:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6944; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393288449; x=1394498049; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=I+FVRZJgXEwPh3IWpClGqZRWGAkyZMPJkKVIa9Z8bB4=; b=OyeZjbME3Wdsj7CpeLOoz+6uHaHqd3RYr77CsUMQfYv2IOkTpzPFYOkX 9SsaAzGhMwxvwQKxfr67uoqG0uQ/TywTjmnWlfJt0eQrZOw7egdF8T6vl 3TqSKQui9SDnTbIyFKvUWQr/t636Ix3xGTXMdbg7wjxsMsgeqZAJo5xMJ c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusaAFTkC1OtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABZgWwEAYEVO1EGwTKBGhZ0giUBAQEEAQEBNzQJAgwGAQgRBAEBAR4JLgsUCQgCBAENBQkSh2oIBcYeF44MWAcGhDIEmDSBMpB1gW+BPoFoQg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,537,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="306316023"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2014 00:34:08 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1P0Y8wZ024365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:34:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.22]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:34:08 -0600
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>, Frederic Jounay <frederic.jounay@orange.ch>, "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, "Mike Taillon (mtaillon)" <mtaillon@cisco.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Manav Bhatia <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPIOaJqiIMOAEGrkS5EKB7Vxg2IpqjnT0AgADCvJCAINagAP//8aFggAAehID//+/34IAAGtSA
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:34:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CF314D2F.1CA8D%rgandhi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B771FB6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [10.86.246.246]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8029BDB07C991241A32A17C3579C0C36@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/iOn36aNGb1s_dZ5TQ0IcXUADMxg
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 25 Feb 2014 00:34:12 -0000
Hi Gert, Not sure why IETF would abondan widely deployed protocol [RFC4090] and associated technology for bidirectional Packet LSPs. I like to hear comments from the WGs. Thanks, Rakesh On 2014-02-24 7:05 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> wrote: >Hi Rakesh, >for the NNHOP bypass you'll not have truly local protection. One would >either have to monitor segment between Upstream and Downstream PLRs or >use some sort of PSC between the two. In any of these cases, Segment >protection based on RFC 6378 offers the solution. > > Regards, > Greg > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:55 PM >To: Gregory Mirsky; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); >Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia; mpls@ietf.org >Cc: CCAMP >Subject: Re: New Version Notification for >draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt > >Hi Greg, > >Two issues being addressed in this draft apply equally to the link >protection case when using [RFC4090]: > >1. bypass assignment co-ordination and >2. sending Resv (from upstream PLR) over reverse bypass to avoid state >timeout. > >For NNHOP bypass, this just corrects the asymmetry of co-routed LSP >forward and reverse paths. > >FYI, this draft was originally published to MPLS WG but then moved to >CCAMP WG. Not sure which is the right WG for this work. > >BTW, [RFC4873] does not state that one can not use [RFC4090] with GMPLS >signalling. Pleas see [RFC4873] Section 2: >" >When [RFC4090] isn't being used, the association between segment recovery >LSPs with other LSPs is indicated using the ASSOCIATION object defined >in [RFC4872]. " > > >This draft simply addresses the gaps when using [RFC4090] for GMPLS >packet LSPs. > >Thanks, >Rakesh > > > >On 2014-02-24 6:16 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> >wrote: > >>Hi Rakesh, >>I understand motivation of authors. Applicability of RFC 4090 to >>bi-directional co-routed LSP was discussed as part of MPLS-TP >>survivability framework (RFC 6372). I think that we've agreed that >>applicability of RFC 4090 is limited to link protection and segment >>protection should be recommended as providing more generic coverage. >>Have authors considered bringing discussion and presenting the proposal >>to MPLS WG? >>Hope you wouldn't mind me adding MPLS WG to the discussion. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com] >>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:58 PM >>To: Gregory Mirsky; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); >>Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia >>Cc: CCAMP >>Subject: Re: New Version Notification for >>draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt >> >>Hi Greg, >> >>Thank you for your comments. >> >>As you know, proposed draft addresses the two issues (state timeout and >>bypass assignment) where FRR [RFC4090] is used for GMPLS packet tunnels. >> >>Motivations for using FRR here is that it is widely deployed in the >>packet MPLS-TE networks today and can leverage all existing FRR >>detection and restoration mechanisms and not have to deploy new >>protocol such as PSC [RFC6378] for protection switchover co-ordination. >> >>Thanks, >>Rakesh >> >> >> >> >>On 2014-02-03 9:40 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> >>wrote: >> >>>Hi Rakesh, et. al, >>>since bi-directional co-routed LSP is MPLS-TP construct I believe that >>>if local node protection is indeed required it should not use RFC 4090 >>>signaling but use ASSOCIATION object as described in Section 2.3 RFC >>>6689 and RFC 6378 MPLS-TP Linear Protection instead. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Greg >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi >>>(rgandhi) >>>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 5:52 AM >>>To: Lizhong Jin; Lizhong Jin; Frederic Jounay; Tarek Saad (tsaad); >>>Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Zafar Ali (zali); Manav Bhatia; Zafar Ali >>>(zali); Mike Taillon (mtaillon); Tarek Saad (tsaad); Frederic JOUNAY; >>>Manav Bhatia >>>Cc: CCAMP >>>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for >>>draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt >>> >>>Hi WG, >>> >>>New revision of the published draft contains following updates: >>> >>>- Remove unidirectional bypass LSP (as per previous comments) >>>- Fix syntax of the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT object. >>>- Misc editorial cleanup. >>> >>> >>>Please provide your review comments. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Rakesh >>> >>> >>> >>>On 2014-02-03 8:44 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>><internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>A new version of I-D, >>>>draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt >>>>has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the >>>>IETF repository. >>>> >>>>Name: draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute >>>>Revision: 03 >>>>Title: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of >>>>Bidirectional Co-routed Traffic Engineering LSPs >>>>Document date: 2014-02-03 >>>>Group: Individual Submission >>>>Pages: 12 >>>>URL: >>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-ls >>>>p >>>>- >>>>fas >>>>treroute-03.txt >>>>Status: >>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-f >>>>a >>>>s >>>>tre >>>>route/ >>>>Htmlized: >>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastrer >>>>o >>>>u >>>>te- >>>>03 >>>>Diff: >>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-f >>>>a >>>>s >>>>tre >>>>route-03 >>>> >>>>Abstract: >>>> This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic >>>> Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to support Fast Reroute >>>> (FRR) of bidirectional co-routed Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. >>>>These >>>> extensions enable the re-direction of bidirectional traffic and >>>> signaling onto bypass tunnels that ensure co-routedness of data and >>>> signaling paths in the forward and reverse directions after FRR. In >>>> addition, the RSVP-TE signaling extensions allow the coordination of >>>> bypass tunnel assignment protecting a common facility in both >>>>forward >>>> and reverse directions prior to or post failure occurrence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >>>>tools.ietf.org. >>>> >>>>The IETF Secretariat >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CCAMP mailing list >>>CCAMP@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >> >
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [CCAMP] New Version Notification for draft-ts… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)