Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08
"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Fri, 09 May 2014 20:28 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB591A00E3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id luoPd0HheXsh for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEA11A00D5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12909; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399667296; x=1400876896; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/WzPdo5mL3vPul4Ekg7a99f8QtgivBcjvjXj4sz58l0=; b=kwfivpJk+LVIqUiCeUEgeHvfyYyYF1MdbKIAebYZr0hBewm+oE80obAP xm33Cx0wvCytImGuyM5QOzuk7ExVqvxp5Itaw798akY1Frp/HKuCKda1l Ks0JPPdX+PypC/P/AsYWYmcGdpHJ9D9UYIx5bAK+82ZxRICx4CaWk9aJf s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAOI5bVOtJA2K/2dsb2JhbABPCoMGT1i+GIc8AYEaFnSCJwEEAQEBJBMtBwsSAQgOKDcLJQIEDgUZiCgN0RkXjXYpCCsHhEAElU+DeIE8kUaDNoFvJBw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1020,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="42566714"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2014 20:28:14 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s49KSEuf008043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 May 2014 20:28:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.162]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 9 May 2014 15:28:14 -0500
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08
Thread-Index: AQHPa8UzrV5Nu6AqB0qKAOs67vHbbw==
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 20:27:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CF92B231.295A9%rgandhi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <536D103A.1060304@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0D1358D151E43F449C306C732855F427@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/toFGzLysn-sJ79tYfvLaDquYm9I
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 09 May 2014 20:28:23 -0000
Thank you Lou for the detailed review of the draft. We will go through these comments and update/advise accordingly. Thanks again, Rakesh and co-authors On 2014-05-09 1:28 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> wrote: >Hi, > >Here are some editorial and technical suggested changes to / comments on >draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08. Please >use/respond as you see >appropriate. > >- The draft has a bunch of idnits issues which need to be fixed > see >hhttp://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccam >p-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08.txt > (I'll use line numbers from this URL below.) > >- Line 18-20: > OLD > achieved by defining the new Association Types in (Extended) > ASSOCIATION object. In addition, RSVP extensions allow asymmetric > upstream and downstream bandwidths for the bidirectional LSP. > NEW > achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION and > in Extended ASSOCIATION objects. One of these types enables > independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs, while > the other enables single sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object > is also defined to enable a single endpoint to specify all the > parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided provisioning case. > >- Line 147 > s/an/the > s/object/objects > >- Line 148: > Add new sentence: "This document refers to the [RFC4872] defined > ASSOCIATION objects and the [RFC6780] defined the Extended ASSOCIATION > objects collectively as the (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects." > >- Lines 150-154 > OLD > This document specifies mechanisms for binding two reverse > unidirectional LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP. The > association is achieved by defining new Association Types in the > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object. RSVP extensions allow asymmetric > upstream and downstream bandwidths for the bidirectional LSP. > NEW > This document specifies mechanisms for binding two reverse > unidirectional LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP. The > association is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in > (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects. One of these types enables > independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs, while > the other enables single sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object > is also defined to enable a single endpoint to specify all the > parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided provisioning > case. For example, the REVERSE_LSP Object allow asymmetric upstream > and downstream bandwidths for the associated bidirectional LSP. > > >- You introduce the terms "single sided and double sided provisioning" in > this document. This is fine, but they shouldn't have a recursive > definition. I therefore suggest > - Line 180: s/side/endpoint > - Lines 118,190: s/sides/endpoints > >- Line 183: drop "to this" > >- Line 264: > OLD > New REVERSE_LSP object applicable to the single sided provisioning > New > A new REVERSE_LSP object for use in the single sided provisioning > >- Line 266-268 > OLD > the existing SENDER_TSPEC object is > added in the REVERSE_LSP object as a subobject in the initiating > LSP's Path message to specify the reverse LSP's traffic parameters. > NEW > a SENDER_TSPEC object can be > added in the REVERSE_LSP object as a subobject in the initiating > LSP's Path message to specify an different bandwidth for the reverse > LSP. > >- Line 270 > Add at end of sentence: "by including other existing objects in a > REVERSE_LSP object." > >- line 275 > s/inserts SENDER_TSPEC subobject/inserts a SENDER_TSPEC subobject for > use by LSP2 > >- Line 283/4 > s/asymmetric bandwidths independently/separate bandwidths, which may > or may not be identical. > >- Section 3.4 > - Perhaps it's worth starting out the section with an informative > description of how recovery is impacted before jumping into an > illustrative example. > >- Section 3.4.1, Lines 305-6 > Has anyone actually implemented what this says??? I don't think it > says what you intend. My understanding was that the recovery of each > LSP would be independent and based on the parameters signaled in their > respective path messages (same as 3.4.2), and both must use the > identical (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects as used in during initial LSP > establishment. The only difference (between single and double) is > that the egress of the initiating LSP would need to recognize that the > recovery LSP is tied to the existing reverse LSP. (Which really > should fall out of normal processing anyway.) > > (No matter what the processing rules need to be aligned with the > resulting text.) > >- Section 3.5 > As I read it, this section says mesh-group LSPs using > associated bidirectional use this (associated bidirectional) > document. is that your intent? If so, I think the section adds no > value and should be dropped. > > Alternatively, is it your intent to say that mesh-group LSPs MUST NOT > use corouted bidirectional signaling? If so, this should be explicitly > stated, discussed and agreed to by the WG. > >- Ordering of sections 4 & 5 > So section 4, which is called processing rules, starts with section > 4.1/4.2 which essentially defines formats. I think the document would > more readable if it started with the format definitions and then went > on to procedures. Yes this is certainly an editorial/style comment, > but I found the current formulation quite confusing. Also 5.2 is > completely redundant with 4.1. > >- Lines 352/4 shouldn't these be LSP not LSPs? > >Section 4.3 - Lines 394-427 - Suggested reordering, edits and additions: > >(lines 394-39) > This document defines the processing for the association of two > unidirectional LSPs to form an associated bidirectional LSP. > Such association is based on the use of an (Extended) ASSOCIATION > object. >(lines 420-427) > The procedures related to the actual identification of associations > between LSPs based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects are defined in > [RFC6780]. [RFC6780] specifies that in the absence of Association > Type-specific rule for identifying association, the included > (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects in the LSPs MUST be identical in order > for an association to exist. This document adds no specific rules > for the new Association Types defined, and the identification of LSP > association therefore proceeds as specified in [RFC6780]. >(lines 411-418) > As described in [RFC6780], association of LSPs can be upstream or > downstream initiated, as indicated by (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects > in Path or Resv Messages. The association of bidirectional LSPs is > always upstream initialized, therefore the Association Types defined > in this document are only to be interpreted in Path Messages. These > types SHOULD NOT be used in ASSOCIATION objects carried in Path > messages and SHOULD be ignored if present. Only one >(lines 398-402) > To indicate an associated bidirectional LSP, an ingress MUST insert > an (Extended) ASSOCIATION object into the Path message of the > unidirectional LSP that is part of the associated bidirectional LSP it > initiates. If either Global Association Source or Extended > Association Address is required, then an Extended ASSOCIATION object > [RFC6780] MUST be inserted in the Path message. Otherwise, an > ASSOCIATION object MAY used. Only one (Extended) ASSOCIATION object > with the Association Types defined in this document SHOULD be > included by an egress in an outgoing Path message. (Extended) > ASSOCIATION objects with both single sided and double sided > Association Types MUST NOT be added in the same Path message. >(lines 404-409) > The ingress node MUST set the Association Type field in the > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object to "Single Sided Associated > Bidirectional LSPs" when single sided provisioning is used, and to > "Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs" when double sided > provisioning is used. >(new) > A transit node MAY identify the unidirectional LSPs of an associated > bidirectional LSP based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects, with the > Association Type values defined in this document, carried in Path > messages. Clearly, such associations are only possible when the LSPs > the transit node. As defined above, such associations are made per > the rules defined in [RFC6780]. > > Egress nodes which support the Association Types defined in this > document identify the unidirectional LSPs of an associated > bidirectional LSP based on (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects carried in > Path messages. Note that an ingress node will normally be the ingress > for one of the unidirectional LSPs that make up an associated > bidirectional LSP. When an egress node receives a Path message > containing an (Extended) ASSOCIATION objects with one of the > Association Types defined in this document, it MUST attempt to > identify other LSPs (including ones for which it is an ingress node) > with which the LSP being processed is associated. As defined above, > such associations are made per the rules defined in [RFC6780]. > >- Section 4.3.1 Covers tear down, but what about setup and changes to > single sided provisioned reverse LSPs? This really needs to be > specified. > > How about moving & modifying 459/460 to the end of the previous > section: > > No additional processing is needed for Path messages with an > (Extended) ASSOCIATION object containing an Association Type field > of Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP. > > and then rename > > Section 4.3.1. Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP Processing > > and have it cover the setup, modification, and teardown cases. It > should include how the reverse LSP's objects are created from the > triggering LSP, both when the REVERSE_LSP object is present and when > it isn't. It should also cover/mention the possibility of when > modification to (or even a new) the originating LSP does or doesn't > change a previously established reverse LSP. > > Lines 505-509 also belong in this section as they relate to > single sided provisioning in general and not just REVERSE_LSP object > processing. > > -- Let me know if you get stuck and I'll try to help. > >- Lines 429-440: move to the end of section 4.3.2 > >- Line 432: s/MAY exist/can be present > >- Line 433: s/MAY/can > >- Line 452 (new paragraph): > When an LSP signaled with a Path message containing an (Extended) > ASSOCIATION object with an Association Type defined in this document > is torn down, the processing node SHALL remove the binding of the LSP > to any previously identified associated bidirectional LSP. > >- Line 478: s/MAY/MUST > (how else could it control the reverse LSP) > >- Line 480: s/LSP/LSP originating >- Line 480/1: Drop "and to specify the reverse LSP's traffic parameters." > >- Line 485/486: "A REVERSE_LSP object MUST contain at least one >subobject." > > What does it include if their are no objects to include? > >- Line 489: s/endpoint/egress > >- Line 492->501: reorder and revise: > > An egress node, upon receiving a Path message containing one or more > REVERSE_LSP objects MUST verify that the Path message contains an > ASSOCIATION or Extended ASSOCIATION object with the Association Type > set to "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs". If it does not, > the message MUST NOT trigger a reverse LSP. This verification > failure SHOULD NOT trigger any RSVP message but can be logged > locally, and perhaps reported through network management mechanisms. > > Once validated, the egress MUST use the subobjects contained in any > present REVERSE_LSP objects in the management of the reverse LSP > described in the previous section. Note that the contents of a > REVERSE_LSP object may change over the life of an LSP and such > changes MUST result in corresponding changes in the reverse LSP. > >- Section 4.4.1 - belongs in 4.3.1. > >- Line 544 > s/[ <REVERSE_LSP]/[ <REVERSE_LSP> ... ] > >- Line 579 s/subobjects/objects > >- Section 6, this section should identify the registries impacted in > this document. See draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12 for a > recent example. > >- Section 9.2 > I'd say 3473 is normative. > >_______________________________________________ >CCAMP mailing list >CCAMP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvp… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)