Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label

@Lou - Thanks for lending some direction to this thread (it was going in
cycles).

Zafar/Giovanni,

Do you agree that wrt alien wavelengths, "signaling a setup request without
knowing what upstream-label to use" is not some remote special case?
Yes or No?

Regards,
-Pavan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

>
> The use of / debate on acceptable label set goes all the way back to its
> introduction.  It always came down to a trade off of what mechanism
> would be sufficient for the normal ("G") cases and to what level we'd
> optimize for special cases.  I think the draft implicitly revisits one
> particular trade off decision and argues that what was once a special
> case is now a common case -- that should be optimized.
>
> I really think this is the first point to reach any agreement on.
>
> I personally think that the use of a special or reserved upstream label
> is a fine way, with established precedent, to indicate such special
> processing. (That is, if we were to decided that such is warranted in
> this case.)
>
> Lou
>
> On 02/28/2014 09:36 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > yes clear,  I was just bringing back on the table discussion we got on
> > the same problem. The second option in better (although contention
> > window is reduced but not avoided) however we had no numbers to justify
> >  that such optimization or ... at least not so strong  reasons to update a
> > mechanism that was proven to work.
> >
> > Cheers
> > G
> >
> >
> > On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:10, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net
> > <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> Giovanni,
> >>
> >> Use of acceptable doubles the signaling overhead and opens up a
> >> contention window:
> >>
> >> 1)      Path
> >> 2)      Path_err w/ acceptable label
> >> 3)      Contention window
> >> 4)      Path w/ acceptable label
> >> 5)      Resv
> >>
> >> Versus:
> >>
> >> 1)      Path w/ downstream assigned label request
> >> 2)      Resv w/ downstream assigned label
> >>
> >> Also, it's generally considered a bad idea(tm) to include error messages
> >> in the normal operation of a protocol
> >>
> >> Yours Irrespectively,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> *From:* CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Giovanni
> >> Martinelli (giomarti)
> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 4:54 AM
> >> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> >> *Cc:* ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
> >>
> >> Hi Vishnu,
> >>
> >> On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     (2) The use of Label-Set/Acceptable Label-Set was meant to be used
> >>     for exceptions. Using it always for every setup request is a
> >>     compromised solution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At the time we discussed the wson signaling
> >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06), the
> >> acceptable label set was considered good enough. Not sure it comes
> >> into play at every request since your label_set should have reasonably
> >> good labels.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> G
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>