Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 10:54 UTC
Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
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 6644611E8175 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.754, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 juWICZjkpL1n for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748AD11E8176 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26300; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375268067; x=1376477667; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lAmvZW+hNkMsXwnVa7tSNZuULzj7DIgYweDhSIbHmYU=; b=HA1IXhVt7LKkUEZAY9q8fSjdtNjm9uhed8gKhfQh1ohG7jREVq1eB6vp RzMLPIlHKZdFT3i2ydPLHEefMrpOjhoJ9LhslNTbuYpofe3ZeXK8lD6av EgWBzXDN7Z5uUbqzjvFZGiMZ9DviO6ZV69na4qDXnxHrFcT5bWExbc1He M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAFrs+FGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVC+HIEYFnSCJAEBAQQtXgEIEQMBAQELFgc5FAkIAgQBEggRh3e4co9WDRMXAYMYcwOpLIMUgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,786,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241790014"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 10:54:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6VAsQN4001959 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:54:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.213]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:54:26 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@coriant.com>, Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAG5uQwAAdbOAAAAUWKEAAHaZGAAA2DHKAABMFSAAABVtHgAAKruoA=
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:54:25 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F417B@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <523C37072C291347B9730C9291CCA07D0D0F1B@DB3PRD0411MB427.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.212.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D30E9F417Bxmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
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, 31 Jul 2013 10:54:33 -0000
Hi Margaria- Resource reservation (in control plane) are always associated with a given priority. The inquiry LSP should be signaled using the same setup and hold priority as the currently active LSP. Changing priority of inquiry LSP to 7 (lowest) will cause incorrect blocking for the inquiry LSP (as resource may be available at the priority of the LSP but may not be available at the 7 (lowest) priority. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: <Margaria>, "Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@coriant.com<mailto:cyril.margaria@coriant.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:46 AM To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Hi, For the resource reservation aspect, this seems related to priorities, LSP inquiry without reservation could be defined as LSP with setup, holding priority 8 (or 255). This would in addition allow for reporting when the resource are gone (preempted) Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Cyril Margaria From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:00 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Hi Khuzema: Please see in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:45 AM To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Hi Zafar, The point I am making here is.. the 2 approaches.. Admin Status and LSP_Attributes, are exactly same in terms of object re-use and both of them defines new bits for enhanced functionality. The LSP_Attribute approach has additional overhead of managing a separate control LSP, which is not desirable. The inquire/ potential reopt LSP is likely not to follow path of the currently active LSP. Hence this cannot be implemented by just adding some Admin Status bit on the current LSP. One need to signal a separate LSP. Thanks Khuzema From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:17 AM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Hi Khuzema: For signaling inquiry LSP with resource locking, we are using the Pre-Planned LSP flag as-is as defined in RFC6001. Given this, we are defining a new flag when inquiry LSP needs to be signal without resource locking. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:45 PM To: zali <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Well.. not really. You are defining new bits for LSP_ATTRIBUTES for resource locking… aren’t you? Instead of doing that, you can define bits in ADMIN_STATUS and save new LSP life cycle management, which would be quite cumbersome. Regards Khuzema From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:08 PM To: Khuzema Pithewan; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema: The point is to reuse what already exists. The Pre-Planned LSP flag in the Attribute Flags TLV of LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is already defined in [RFC5420] and is a glove fit. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:40 PM To: Khuzema Pithewan <kpithewan@infinera.com<mailto:kpithewan@infinera.com>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Another point I spoke about in the meeting .. Why can’t we extend Admin Status object to signal resource locking, checking for re-optimization. Since this operation is typically done in maintenance window by Admin, it may make sense to use Admin Status Object. Moreover, we have lots of bits available/undefined in Admin Status object. This will save network element to manage life of additional LSP and control plane failure related issues attached to the additional LSP. Khuzema
- [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- [CCAMP] 答复: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00 Gert Grammel