Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Thu, 14 April 2011 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE46E0709; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHPnQncGsPop; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2595E069F; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 35101461793122; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:13:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 4886.3565597523; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:16:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p3EEFxDm033250; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:15:59 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927AFA5F4@szxeml508-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: CF718764:E2B808A5-48257872:004B380C; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFCF718764.E2B808A5-ON48257872.004B380C-48257872.004E5FC3@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:16:04 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-04-14 22:16:02, Serialize complete at 2011-04-14 22:16:02
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004E5FC048257872_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p3EEFxDm033250
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:16:20 -0000

Hi Jie

Thank you for the comments. :)

According to the description in section 4

"The Association ID MUST be set to its own signaled LSP ID (default); if 
known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP."
"The first 16-bits MUST be set to its own tunnel ID (default); if known, 
it May be set to the tunnel ID of the associated reverse tunnel."
 
What about the revision like this: "if known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID 
of the associated reverse LSP or inherited from the corresponding recovery 
LSP."

I will address all the comments in the next version.

Best regards 

Fei

:)



Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com> 
发件人:  ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
2011-04-14 20:22

收件人
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
抄送

主题
Re: [CCAMP] poll on     making 
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG   document






Hi authors,

One quick comment here.

In section 3.3 recovery considerations, it says
" LSP3... can share the same TE tunnel with LSP1 or not. ... This can be 
done by inserting the Extended ASSOCIATION object in LSP3's Path message 
with the same value as in LSP1's Path message."

This means LSP3 may use LSP1's IDs in the Extended ASSOCIATION object in 
its Path message, which may contain Tunnel_Num and LSP_ID different from 
its own and LSP2's.

However, in section 4, the specification of Association ID and Extended 
Association ID field says:
 o Association ID:
   The Association ID MUST be set to its own signaled LSP ID (default); if 
known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP.
 o Extended Association ID:
   ... the first 16-bits MUST be set to its own tunnel ID (default); if 
known, it May be set to the tunnel ID of the associated reverse tunnel.

Hence the two specifications conflict with each other.


Regards,
Jie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:24 PM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working
> group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical
> reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday April 15.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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