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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <> Wed, 31 July 2013 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFA421F9FF2 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ZyHgmEHtD8S for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D566721F8F67 for <>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=34387; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375262807; x=1376472407; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=fOj/dhYxC5UIM8FmeormapoJU3LdlDjE5VgvZ4yoqIg=; b=KD2OhVdZCUmFcp/UgdKnd8oVKUkgnwjwtHxY3zM2munFdVZdAYrDJ9V/ eT/frN7UIg9WPNDYtauDCwkSEd/ZVQ9SXotOUvZw45IbG5yW2kzhkvzTH RfCJ3210YihR8Wfx0CPuKpdGMIyf4MrmRhz7AGp56gJNnDnfrihHVsirS M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,786,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241668988"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 09:26:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6V9QjCV009009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:26:45 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:26:45 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
To: "" <>, "'Khuzema Pithewan'" <>, "'CCAMP'" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAxw6uA///DJAA=
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:26:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <03f301ce8dcc$faeca2a0$f0c5e7e0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F40A5xmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:27:21 -0000

Hi Adrian/ Khuzema:

Inquiry LSP is a "control plane LSP" which is setup using tunnel Tspec and non-null (actual) labels in Path/ Resv. Resource availability is examined but the resources are NOT committed in the data plane (e.g., no XC).


Regards … Zafar

From: "<>" <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:04 AM
To: 'Khuzema Pithewan' <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Right, Khuzema, you caught the right piece of text.

The point here is that the LSP is *not* set up in the data plane if it has a different label. All that is happening is that the LSP-ID and state is being set up in the control plane.

I may have said it before <snarkle> but it is massively helpful for people to pay close attention to whether they mean "control plane LSP" or "data plane LSP" when they say "LSP".


From:<> [] On Behalf Of Khuzema Pithewan
Sent: 30 July 2013 15:25
To: CCAMP (<>)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00


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.