Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

Lou

Regarding B.1 and B.2

2) Support for FRR bypass tunnels for piggybacked on the TP
bidirectional LSP mechanisms

B.1) Articulate the FRR/GMPLS-related issue you'd like to address?

B.2) Articulate why this issue should be solved in a TP-specific and not 
GMPLS generic fashion?

I do not think we introduce the FRR bypass tunnels in this draft, which is 
used for local protection (RFC4090).

Do you see them in section 3.2.4 or section 3.2.6, I personally think they 
are GMPLS generic fashion and are totally informational.

If the descriptions mislead you, please give us some guidance and we are 
happy to revise them.

Best regards

Fei

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 
2012-08-17 05:10

收件人
"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
抄送
"ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn" 
<zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
主题
Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

Rakesh,
                 Such major changes (in scope and functionality) to WG 
drafts are
usually discussed with the WG prior to the authors/editors just
publishing the changes.  But, this is a judgment call by the document
editors in how, quoting rfc2418, they "ensur[e] that the contents of the
document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by the
working group."

So let's jump into discussing the changes.

As I see it this draft introduces several major functional changes that
have not been discussed by the WG.  Correct me if I get them wrong, but
I believe they include:
1) Introduction of a second method for signaling Co-routed LSPs
2) Support for FRR bypass tunnels for piggybacked on the TP
bidirectional LSP mechanisms.

   There are also other changes, but I'll defer discussing them
   until the discussion on the above is concluded.

Is this correct?

Assuming yes, I have questions about both rational and specific
mechanisms.  For now let's look at the former, so please:

A) Articulate the issues/limitations with using the RFC3473 defined
mechanisms for (co-routed) bidirectional LSPs that you'd like to see
addressed.

B.1) Articulate the FRR/GMPLS-related issue you'd like to address?

B.2) Articulate why this issue should be solved in a TP-specific and not
GMPLS generic fashion?

Thanks,
Lou

On 8/16/2012 4:26 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Please advise if you think detailed email is required. 
> We believe latest draft summarizes the changes well and we could start 
review/discussions from there.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:00 PM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
> 
> Rakesh,
>                Is this the start of the thread that I requested in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13729.html
> 
> In particular, is it the response to:
>> I'd like to ask that someone (Rakesh, Fei, etc.) review each of the 
>> proposed change and the rational for each change (in one or in 
>> separate e-mails). The WG discussion can then really begin on the 
>> proposed changes. (Which are quite substantial both in scope and
>> implication.)
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 8/16/2012 3:19 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We have uploaded a new version of this draft with following changes:
> 
> 1.  Added a section on Signaling of Co-routed LSPs 
> 
> 2.  Added clarification on Signaling of Associated Bidirectional 
Protection LSPs 
> 
> 3.  Added a section on Signaling of Auto-tunnel Mesh-group LSPs 
> 
> 4.   Added clarification on Signaling of Inter-domain Associated 
Bidirectional LSPs 
> 
> 5.  The Extended ASSOCIATION object format with Association Type 
"Associated Bidirectional LSP". Clarified on how to populate different 
fields in this object.
> 
> 
>> We believe that some of these changes were necessary to avoid the 
interoperability issues due to potentially different interpretations.
>>
>> Your review comments are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
>> Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:53 AM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
>> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
>> draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>               Title           : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated 
Bidirectional LSPs
>>               Author(s)       : Fei Zhang
>>                           Ruiquan Jing
>>                           Rakesh Gandhi
>>               Filename        : 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>               Pages           : 17
>>               Date            : 2012-08-15
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document 
[RFC5654],
>>    describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
>>    to-point LSPs.
>>
>>    This document provides a method to bind two unidirectional Label
>>    Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP.  The
>>    association is achieved by defining the new Association Type in the
>>    Extended ASSOCIATION object.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-a
>> ssociated-lsp
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associa
>> ted-lsp-04
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-a
>> ssociated-lsp-04
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 