[CCAMP] follow-up on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05

"Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBBF11E8117 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wWkEq277sOJq for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA7511E80E6 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVP66317; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:49:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:49:20 +0100
Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:49:31 +0100
Received: from SZXEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:49:18 +0800
From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: follow-up on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05
Thread-Index: Ac6ONGnO1v/vaEAqR+y66p48VraVAw==
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:49:18 +0000
Message-ID: <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B189D450F@szxeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [CCAMP] follow-up on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05
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 21:49:41 -0000

Hi, CCAMPers, 

   At end of the presentation, a question was raised by Lou that check whether RFC6107 can solve the problem we are trying to address. After discussion offline with co-authors as well as check that RFC, we think that that RFC does not cover what this draft intend to do. The reason is: RFC6107 provide extensions to support to indicate the type of FA-LSP, or to which IGP the FA-LSP is advertised to etc. .  In our draft, we trying to address the problem how a LSP (not necessarily a FA-LSP) can explicitly specify the region change in a MLN/MRN context. 

   As for the question wehther it needs routing extensions, I may not make myself clear enough during the presentation. So i would like to clarify: yes, we need it. Of course, we primarily have in mind using PCE to provide such needed information. But IMHO current scope of "draft-rao-ccamp-mlnmrn-otn-ospfte-ext-02" is generic enough. Would be great to see a generic draft and we are interested to get aligned. 

  Please review our draft and send your comments. Much appreciated.