Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 09 October 2013 19:06 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.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 6DAC521F9F0A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nAf8phVUtF8l for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7927721E818F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail185-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.251) by CO1EHSOBE030.bigfish.com (10.243.66.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:26 +0000
Received: from mail185-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail185-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B89D2C00F7; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz9371I542Iec9I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz8275ch1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h186068h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail185-co1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(51704005)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(13464003)(37854004)(54316002)(56776001)(85306002)(81686001)(76482001)(65816001)(66066001)(80022001)(74366001)(79102001)(77982001)(63696002)(59766001)(81816001)(74876001)(74706001)(83072001)(69226001)(47736001)(49866001)(50986001)(47976001)(53806001)(4396001)(46102001)(51856001)(54356001)(80976001)(31966008)(47446002)(74662001)(74502001)(19580405001)(83322001)(19580395003)(81542001)(74316001)(76796001)(76786001)(76576001)(81342001)(77096001)(33646001)(56816003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB143; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.51; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail185-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail185-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1381345524210481_24049; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.231]) by mail185-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEDC5C007A; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CO1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.243.66.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:23 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:23 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.9; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:21 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.177]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.115]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.005; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:21 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
Thread-Index: AQHOw/RvMrBCr56VuU2xebXAhUabxpnrFPqAgABNoZCAAHWXAIAA5NPg
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:05:21 +0000
Message-ID: <99bfea416ebf44029b44cd87391ba5e4@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <a216a142647f4616aba1bffd7b5b0d6f@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654FB8@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30F654FB8@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.51]
x-forefront-prvs: 0994F5E0C5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes
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, 09 Oct 2013 19:06:15 -0000
Zafar, This sounds like nonsense. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:26 PM > To: John E Drake; Fatai Zhang; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering > (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > > Hi John: > > No, RFC 5520/ RFC5533 are fine. The issue is that solution proposed by draft- > zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-00.txt forces customers to deploy a > stateful PCE where PCE need to remember path it has served for indefinite > time. > > Thanks > > Regards ... Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net> > Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 6:26 PM > To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, > "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering > (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > > >Zafar, > > > >So, is your assertion that RFC5553 is broken? > > > >Yours Irrespectively, > > > >John > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:47 AM > >> To: Fatai Zhang; John E Drake; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic > >> Engineering > >> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > >> > >> Fatai and all- > >> > >> In a stateless PCE, Path Keys are transient and they expire. For this > >>solution to work you need a PCE that can keep Paths associated with a > >>Path Key around (a stateful PCE where states are path computed by the > >>PCE). > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Regards Š Zafar > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> > >> Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:01 AM > >> To: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" > >> <ccamp@ietf.org> > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic > >> Engineering > >> (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > >> > >> >Hi John, > >> > > >> >Totally agree with you, I already found these two drafts are much > >> >*useless*. > >> > > >> >This is why we made a new draft (very simple and useful) and put our > >> >feet on the ground. > >> > > >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusio > >> >n-p > >> >ath > >> >key-00.txt > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Best Regards > >> > > >> >Fatai > >> > > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf > >> >Of John E Drake > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:27 AM > >> >To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) > >> >Subject: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering > >> >(RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Routes > >> > > >> >HI, > >> > > >> >I was reading: > >> >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity/?incl > >> >ude _te xt=1, and I happened to notice the following paragraph: > >> > > >> >"The means by which the node calculating or expanding the route of > >> >the signaled LSP discovers the route of the path(s) from which the > >> >signaled LSP requires diversity are beyond the scope of this document. " > >> > > >> >Doesn't this disclaimer effectively render this draft useless? The > >> >draft also does not define how the node that initially signaled the > >> >LSP finds the 'node calculating or expanding the route' nor how it > >> >delivers the signaled LSP request to that node. > >> > > >> >As an aside, the draft: > >> >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route/? > >> >inc > >> >lude_text=1 would be subject to the same criticism except that the > >> >above quoted paragraph is replaced with: > >> > > >> >"The above-mentioned use cases require relevant path inclusion > >> >requirements to be communicated to the route expanding nodes. This > >> >document addresses these requirements and defines procedures to > >> >address them." > >> > > >> >Even though this is helpful, the draft doesn't actually define these > >> >procedures. > >> > > >> >Yours Irrespectively, > >> > > >> >John > >> > > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >CCAMP mailing list > >> >CCAMP@ietf.org > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >CCAMP mailing list > >> >CCAMP@ietf.org > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > >> > >> > > > > > >
- [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Eng… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic… John E Drake