IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CCAMP] Question on LSP control in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Fri, 31 August 2012 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.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 3B3D321F860D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.694, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B7bFdppUtpPp for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B218D21F85EA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rgandhi@cisco.com; l=692; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346420976; x=1347630576; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=o+n61xj9PX1/8EbRyriFTv/QSQnA/CsOLlkKgQodoYM=; b=ONCvP7bqDd6yiqT2lqpujZaWyZDzEkh5HfMJWrdoadMq6OVWJVFPBEdE 6eecN+0+sTU17Uq7R419wOGYkkkujQysyJxCd25pxn/C7MCPUrzJi7KXV ydmshtJEmWH8jHTM+5Wyqe3fRO09sK9UmLvPr9xknKg4PWEznUzRIkjru g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EANe/QFCtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFuxaBB4IiAQQSASc/EgEWFBRCJgEEDg0ah2ucKqApkSpgA6QLgWeCYw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,347,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="116981611"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2012 13:49:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7VDnaH0031294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:49:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.196]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:49:36 -0500
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: Question on LSP control in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
Thread-Index: Ac2Hf3Os+VLHAQPjT0mEShgHpTx4wg==
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:49:35 +0000
Message-ID: <B7D2A316AA32B6469D9670B6A81B7C24075DFC@xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.244.16]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19152.000
x-tm-as-result: No--34.135400-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Question on LSP control in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:49:37 -0000

Hi Lou, Fei,

When an (originating) ingress node is provisioned with "5 (TBD)  Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs  (A)" and wishes to control both forward and reverse  LSPs by adding "REVERSE_LSP" object, I would think that the ingress node needs to know about the signaling (path) errors (such as soft preemption or admission failure) on the reverse LSP.  Is there any text somewhere in an RFC/draft that describes how a mid-point node can send the signaling (path) error to the originating ingress node for the reverse LSP? Is there an assumption to use RSVP_NOTIFY message? Sorry if I had missed any previous discussion on this topic.

Thanks,
Rakesh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email