Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

From: Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:04 PM
To: Dieter Beller <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

Hi,

Moreover, this information is only make sense for the end points and no need to be signaled.



Fatai-

Are you saying that we NEVER signal any attribute that only matter to the end-point? This is a news to me.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar



Best Regards

Fatai

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dieter Beller
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Zafar Ali (zali)
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

Hi Zafar,

this draft is defining signaling extensions for the hold-off time as well as the wait-to-restore time for protected LSPs
where applicable.

There are default values set for these timers in the data plane and signaling them in the control plane makes only
sense if the timer values shall differ from the default values. Do you see a need for that? IMO, operators typically
use the defaults and do not set these values on a per connection basis.


Thanks,
Dieter

On 08.11.2013 22:11, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:

Hi Lou-



You are right, the ctype is TBD, like I mentioned during the meeting that

we are using different ctype.



We would like to take this opportunity to solicit comments from the WG on

this draft.



Thanks



Regards Š Zafar



-----Original Message-----

From: "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:17 PM

To: zali <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps



Zafar,

   My comment in today's session was that you are redefining the format of

an existing object (by adding TLVs) this breaks compatibility.  You

stated that this wasn't the case.



FWIW:



Your document says:



   0                   1                   2                   3

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  |            Length             | Class-Num(37) |   C-Type(2)   |

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  |S|P|N|O| Reserved  | LSP Flags |      Reserved     | Link Flags|

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  |I|R|   Reserved    | Seg.Flags |           Reserved            |

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  |                                                               |

  ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~

  |                                                               |

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





RFC4872 says

     0                   1                   2                   3

     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    |            Length             | Class-Num(37) | C-Type (2)    |

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    |S|P|N|O| Reserved  | LSP Flags |     Reserved      | Link Flags|

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    |                           Reserved                            |

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Perhaps you meant C-Type(TBD).  You should address compatibility

explicitly in any case.



Lou



_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

--
[cid:image001.jpg@01CEDF8E.9139D6C0]
DIETER BELLER
ALCATEL-LUCENT DEUTSCHLAND AG
PROJECT MANAGER ASON/GMPLS CONTROL PLANE
IP ROUTING AND TRANSPORT BL
IP TRANSPORT BU

Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Phone: [phone]
Mobil: [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG
Domicile of the Company: Stuttgart · Local Court Stuttgart HRB 4026
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Michael Oppenhoff
Board of Management: Wilhelm Dresselhaus (Chairman) · Hans-Jörg Daub · Andreas Gehe

This e-mail and its attachments, if any, may contain confidential information.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete or destroy the e-mail and its attachments, if any, immediately.
If you have received this e-mail in error, you must not forward or make use of the e-mail and its attachments, if any.